مطالب

If successful scientific inquiry is to be possible, there must be a world that is independent of how we believe it to be, and in which there are kinds and laws; and we must have the sensory apparatus to perceive particular things and events, and the capacity to represent them, to form generalized explanatory conjectures, and check how these conjectures stand up to further experience. Whether these preconditions are met is not a question the sciences can answer; it is specifically philosophical. This is why the myriad forms of scientistic philosophy in vogue today (neurophilosophy, experimental philosophy, naturalized metaphysics, evangelical-atheist reductionism, etc), are all hollow at the core. Does this mean we must return to the old, a priori analytic model? No! What is needed instead is scientific philosophy in the sense Peirce articulated more than a century ago: philosophy motivated by a genuine desire to discover the truth, and relying not solely on reason but also on experience—only not the special, recherché experience required by the sciences, but close attention to aspects of everyday experience so familiar we hardly notice them.

In another essay, I’ve argued by means of a formal analogy between (i) the incompleteness of Principia Mathematica-style systems of mathematical logic (logico-mathematical incompleteness) and (ii) the incompleteness of the Standard Models in contemporary physics (physico-mechanical incompleteness), that (iii) just as the fact of logico-mathematical incompleteness entails the existence of mathematical creativity, so too the fact of physico-mechanical incompleteness entails the existence of natural creativity. Building on that line of thought, in this essay I present a new and empirically-testable strategy for completing quantum mechanics. More precisely, I argue that if we assume that the Standard Models in contemporary physics are incomplete, and if we also assume that all rational human animals are primitive sources of natural creativity via their free agency, then, by means of an appeal to Bohmian mechanics, together with the thesis that all rational human animals are primitive sources of natural creativity via their free agency, we can complete quantum mechanics.

Herman Philipse considers “religious beliefs, faith and religion [to be] incompatible with science or reason”; he defines religion scientifically and specifically rejects religious doctrine. He describes reason “… as the whole of methods of empirical scientific research and critical discursive thinking as they have evolved in the scientific tradition and will continue to develop in the future” and he defines “… the phenomenon of conscience as a mental organ that can be scientifically explained and that makes the religious explanation superfluous …”. Herman Philipse classifies science as the highest in rank, discards religion and sees philosophy, a rational view of the world, as based solely on the sciences. For his subject, Hans Achterhuis “… primarily cites biologists, ethologists and evolutionary psychologists with a philosophical interest” because “they presently have more to offer [him] than do his immediate colleagues”. Furthermore, “… it will be clear that ethologists and sociobiologists are of the opinion that the violent behaviour of human beings must be understood in part from the point of view of the evolutionary history of the sort ….. most philosophers and anthropologists are not aware of this. Their considerations suggest that violence only entered our world together with humankind”. Achterhuis’s choice is a “historic concept of violence”.

To date, of essential goals in psychiatry and establishment of future medical centers is creating therapeutic environments with the aim of improving clinical outcomes, preventing the progression of personality difficulties to serious psychiatric disorders, increasing self-satisfaction in society, facilitating personal growth and actualization, as well as reducing high medical costs. In this regard, the Personality Modulation Clinic in 2016 in Tabriz University of Medical Sciences was established, with the aim of providing appropriate mental health services for clients who do not fulfill criteria for a specific mental disorder, in the traditional classifications; nevertheless, desiring to eliminate inner obstacles towards mental growth, self-actualization, spirituality and the proper well-being they lack. The services in this clinic provide clients with support in order to seek innovative growth opportunities within themselves, by removing inner obstacles towards personality development. These obstacles are roughly equivalent to the diagnosis of “personality difficulty” in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Moreover, the therapeutic foundation of this clinic is an emerging medical paradigm known as Cosmetic Psychiatry. At the beginning of any new scientific establishment, as usually happens, and was true for this clinic as well, the bond of philosophical concepts are unveiled, and this is the irreversible and undeniable link between science and philosophy. Thereby, important questions appeared, which were approached philosophically.

An obvious feature of the development of the philosophy of science during the past decades is an increasing specialization and fragmentation that have led to reduced impact of philosophy of science outside the sphere of its own discipline. It seems that philosophy of science and scientific research are moving away from each other. The major question of this article is how can reconnect these two?To answer this question I will try to highlight some events especially in the fields of social sciences that researchers are involved in discussions, generally related to philosophy of science, not in an abstract and isolated way, but in a way that is completely intertwined in their research practices.  Unfortunately, this phenomenon has not been properly considered by philosophers of science and has remained more as a subject in the field of social sciences, specifically research methodology. It seems that if philosophy of science enters into dialogue with social sciences, we can expect the revival of the philosophy of general science. In this article, I try to show the signs of this phenomenon in cognitive psychology. I will first turn to one of the most influential theories in the cognitive sciences, expertise theory. After reviewing the important theories of expertise and their differences, in the next step I will discuss the seemingly opposing theories in this field and their efforts to find common ground. Then I will review the current movement in cognitive psychology, which I call the “integration model” stream. After a critical review and categorization of these models, I will show that in a broader view in social science, we can realize the meta-theoretical issues that are a good room for a dialogue between philosophy of science and scientific research. In the end, I will point out the horizons that this view opens to the revival of philosophy of general science.

Geopolitics as a branch of political geography is scientific in nature and, similar to other scientific disciplines, has two aspects: basic (fundamental) and applied. The basic aspect deals with the production of scientific theories, theoretical propositions and the development of geopolitical knowledge. The applied aspect deals with the production of practical theories, patterns and practical geopolitical methods to meet the needs of nations, countries and human societies. Applied knowledge of geopolitics, like applied propositions and theories of other disciplines, can be affected to some extent by worldviews, ideologies, cultures, attitudes, as well as the interests of nations, political users, and governments. Therefore, geopolitical science and knowledge, similar to other scientific disciplines, are inherently worthwhile and useful, and must be developed to meet the needs of nations and humankind. However, geopolitical knowledge must not be abused by governments and political actors on any scale, whether global, national or local. In contrast, it must be at the service to provide the needs of the citizens, human constructs, nations and human societies. Also, governments and political actors should exercise it in the same direction. Accordingly, the author (Dr. M. R. Hafeznia) has established and proposed a new theoretical /practical approach in the application of geopolitical science and knowledge in the political and moral life of humankind and human constructs, especially nations, under the title of "The Humanist Geopolitics". This view was published for the first time in the form of an article under the same title by the author in Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume: 3, No 4, Winter 2008, and later in the Journal of Conflicts in France, Paris in 2015. Since this geopolitical school has attracted the attention of some interested readers and has raised some questions and ambiguities for them, the author decided to formulate its principles and make them available to those interested to clarify the attitude and dimensions of this school of thought, with the hope that a step can be taken in the direction of relieving the suffering of humankind as the chosen ones by the God as creator of the universe and enhancing the living pattern of humankind and human constructs.

This study is reassessing the geopolitical consideration of the British government in the Sixth Days of the Arab-Israeli War,1967. Based on declassified documents from the British’s archive, this paper will analyze the geopolitical factor which shaped London’s reaction towards the conflict. Middle East geopolitical position was very strategic to the British interests in the region. Hence, the focus of this paper is to re-examine the consequence of the war toward Britain’s attitude in preserving her strategic military position and economic calculation in the Middle East between 1960s to early 1970s. These including the paramountcy of the British military bases in the region, arm trade commercial activities and a disruption of the oil flow from the region to the West. From historical perspective and analysis, this paper argued that the threats from the Soviet and Arab nationalist movements during the conflict had significantly influenced the British government’s reaction towards the war. Although London did not involve directly in the conflict like in the 1956’s Suez Crisis, yet British’s response was still crucial since Britain was the prime architect in drafting and tabling the United Nation Resolution 242 after the war. Indeed, this research inclines to believe that the British equilibrium attitude as proclaimed during the conflict was not purely based on a principle of a just and lasting peace but it was very much relying upon geopolitical consideration of safeguarding British major strategic interests in the region.   .

The main purpose of this article is to examine how and to what extent Iran-Russia cooperation is effective in ensuring ‘broader’ strategic stability through balancing in the Middle East. Strategic stability and balance of power are interrelated components of the region’s order which have changed following the Arab Spring and the Syrian crisis. The article analyzes Iran and Russia’s impact on these two concepts, with a systemic approach, paying attention to interrelationship of variables at regional and international levels. Although strategic stability has been generally considered an issue at international level of great powers politics, this paper, emphasizing on evolution of international relations, believes in a new, complex and multilayered definition of strategic stability - a ‘broader’ one in the Middle East, which is not necessarily ensured by agreements or balance among great powers. The results indicate that Iran-Russia cooperative balancing in the Syrian crisis against the US and at regional level with emphasis on a broad regional balance system has been effective in providing ‘broader’ strategic stability in the region. Although Russia's policy in this field put some limits on Iran, strategically it serves Iran’s interests.

The emergence of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) in various fields of life is proof that civil society is essential in building a democratic society. NGOs can educate citizens and communities on their fundamental rights to create a democratic state and world order life. NGOs in Indonesia and Egypt have played a significant role in strengthening democratic movements by empowering civil society. This study examines NGOs’ role in democratization in Indonesia during the reign of President Suharto and Egypt under the leadership of President Hosni Mubarak. In carrying out their functions, NGOs take a stand as a balancing force for the state and agents of community empowerment. The NGOs’ elements struggle in producing an ideal democratic society order in these two countries facing their respective challenges. Some NGOs challenge building democratic society such as military domination, party hegemony systems, and robust state control over society. To encourage democratization in Indonesia and Egypt, NGOs have contributed to building democratic practices, improving democratic performance, strengthening civil rights, monitoring elections, and promoting corruption eradication. The strengthening of democracy by NGOs in Indonesia and Egypt has impacted building political openness, awareness of citizens' political rights, and pro-society public policies.

This paper examines the relationship between the environmental aesthetics approach backed by knowledge (ecological aesthetics) and the possibility of doing an action in favor of environmental conservation. It seems that even having such an approach towards the environment fails to sufficiently motivate people to protect the environment and nature, since there is a tension between the course of daily life and scientifically supported environmental aesthetics. In order to explain such tension, we tend to examine and critique ecological aesthetics (which is in some respects overlapped with environmental ethics) from the viewpoint of the philosophy of Wittgenstein, particularly with reference to his later work including the concept of formal life. Based on this concept, ecological aesthetics can be criticized and examined on three grounds: First, aesthetics is not able to create understanding or appreciation that leads to action. Second, the ecological concept added to reinforce the aesthetics, cannot support aesthetics in this regard and can even make things worse; ecological aesthetics, in fact, diverts aesthetics from its purpose (the purpose with regards to the environment, which is to motivate people to preserve nature) by trying to give it a strong objectivity. Third, the role of ethics in its current form in environmental conservation cannot be an active role.