Abstract
Can the efforts to discover causal relations in nature be combined with the efforts
to understand its meaning?2 Are these two efforts compatible or mutually exclusive? Some answer this question positively while others answer it negatively.
For those who answer this question negatively, exploring causal relations to reach
an explanation is the only way to study nature. Positivism holds that the issue
should be approached in this fashion; this is also a view that prevails in present
day academia. Positivists are convinced that there is no meaning in nature. Thus,
they believe that any interest in the meaning of nature constitutes heresy in
science. The author will challenge this view in this article and argue the opposite:
Exploring causal relations and deciphering the meaning inherent in nature are
complimentary to each other.
to understand its meaning?2 Are these two efforts compatible or mutually exclusive? Some answer this question positively while others answer it negatively.
For those who answer this question negatively, exploring causal relations to reach
an explanation is the only way to study nature. Positivism holds that the issue
should be approached in this fashion; this is also a view that prevails in present
day academia. Positivists are convinced that there is no meaning in nature. Thus,
they believe that any interest in the meaning of nature constitutes heresy in
science. The author will challenge this view in this article and argue the opposite:
Exploring causal relations and deciphering the meaning inherent in nature are
complimentary to each other.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Ein traditioneller gelehrter stellt sich der moderne |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
| Externally published | Yes |