1

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE  

dr. Al Munaawir, Ph.D.dr. Al Munaawir, Ph.D.

DEPT. OF PATHOLOGY MEDICAL FACULTY UNIVERSITAS JEMBER

JEMBER

2

PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE :

AN ACADEMIC FIELD WHICH STUDIES THE PHENOMENON OF SCIENCE

IT WILL ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS :

• WHAT IS A SCIENCE ?• WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENCE AND KNOWLEDGE ?• HOW CAN WE MAKE A VALID SCIENCTIFIC CONCLUSION ?• WHAT KIND OF ABILITY/INSTRUMENTS DOES SOMEONE NEED TO THINK SCIENTIFICALLY ?

3

WHYWHY

SHOULD WE LEARNSHOULD WE LEARNPHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCEPHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

4

A DOCTOR IS : A CLINICIAN A SCIENTIST

• TO TREAT PATIENTS• TO EVALUATE THE DISEASE• TO DEVELOP THEIR KNOWLEDGE

TO FIND NEW TECHNIQUESTO DISCOVER TECHNIQUES

A DOCTOR IS A STUDENT UNTIL HE/SHE DIE

5

PROBLEM EXAMPLE

TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

SKULL-BASE FRACTURE

3 DAYS

80% SUFFERING FROM BRAIN INFECTION (ENCEPHALITIS)

QUESTION :HOW CAN WE PREVENT THE BRAIN INFECTION TO THE PATIENT WITH SKULL BASE FRACTURE ?

TRAUMA TO THE SKULL

• PREVENTIVE ANTIBIOTICS RIGHT AFTER TRAUMA

• Which Antibiotic ?

6

7

PROBLEM SOLVING

1. INDENTIFY THE ETIOLOGY OF THE BACTERIA.

CULTURE THE CEREBROSPINAL FLUID

2. RESULT : PSEUDOMONAS AEROGINOSA

3. RESULT : KEDACILIN CIPROFLOXACIN

TEST SENSITIVITY FOR ANTIBIOTICS

QUESTION :WHICH ONE CAN BE USE AS THE PROPHYLACTICANTIBIOTIC ?

8

ANSWER :

TO REACH THE BRAIN TISSUES,

THE ANTIBIOTIC SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO

PENETRATE THE BLOOD BRAINE BARIER (BBB)

• KEDALICILIN CAN PENETRATE THE BBB• CIPROPLOXACIN CAN NOT PENETRATE

THE BBB

CONCLUSION :

• KEDACILIN CAN BE USED AS THE PREVENTIVE ANTIBIOTIC TO PREVENT THE BRAIN INFECTION IN SKULL-BASE FRACTURE AFTER TRAFFIC ACCIDENT

9

10

ANIMALANIMAL KNOWLEDGE TO KEEP ALIVESURVIVEEXIST

ADAM & EVEADAM & EVE

HUMAN BEINGHUMAN BEING

A-CREATUREWHO IS ABLE TO

o THINKo FEELo REACT

KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPING

WHICH ONE IS-TRUE/FALSE-BAD/GOOD etc-BEAUTIFUL/UGLYEXSISTINGEXSISTING

GIVE THE MEANING TO LIFEGIVE THE MEANING TO LIFE

11

HUMAN BEINGKNOWLEDGE

o LANGUAGE :-TO COMMUNICATE-TO INFORM THEIR WAY THINKING

o LOGICAL RATIONAL THINKING

DEVELOPING

LOGICAL THINKINGo THE ABILITY TO THINK/ A FORM OF REASONING

12

THINKING/REASONING AN ACTIVITY TO FIND THE TRUTH OF KNOWLEDGE CRITERIA OF TRUTH : RELATIVE

THE WAY OFTHINKING

BASED ON REASONING

NOT BASED ON REASONING

LOGICAL

ANALYTICAL

ILLOGICAL

NON-ANALYTICAL

13

BASED ON REASONING : 

- LOGIC : ACTIVITY OF THINKING BASED ON A CERTAIN PATTERN OF REASONING   

LOGICAL & ILLOGICAL DEPENDS ON THE POINT OF VIEW - ANALYTIC ACTIVITY OF THINKING BASE ON APPLYING CERTAIN STEPS/RULES TO ANALYZE A PROBLEM

14

WITH NO REASONINGWITH NO REASONING : :

  

FEELINGFEELING

INTUITIONINTUITION

NON-ANALYTIC THINKING ACTIVITY NON-ANALYTIC THINKING ACTIVITY

WITHOUT A CERTAIN PATTERN OF THINKINGWITHOUT A CERTAIN PATTERN OF THINKING

REVELATIONREVELATION

15

KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGESOURCESOURCE

FACT/RATIONALEFACT/RATIONALE

EXPERIENCE

REVELATION

RATIONALISME

EMPIRICALISM

BELIEF

16

AN EXAMPLE : 

CAUSE OF GETTING DRUNK 

PLAIN WATER + WHISKEY DRUNKPLAIN WATER + WHISKEY + KRETEK DRUNKPLAIN WATER + PEUYEUM DRUNKPLAIN WATER + TUAK DRUNK 

17

CONCLUSION

CAUSE OF GETTING DRUNK

IS WATER

 

NOT-VALID

18

SCIENTIFIC REASONING

TO ANALYZETHE VALIDITY

DEDUCTIVE THINKING (RATIONALISM)

INDUCTIVE THINKING (EMPIRICALISM)

PRODUCEKNOWLEDGE

DEDUCTIVE : SPECIFIC CONCLUSION DRAWNFROM SOME GENERAL STATEMENTS

INDUCTIVE :GENERAL CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM SOME SPECIFIC STATEMENTS

19

DEDUCTION :

GENERAL SPECIFIC

DEDUCTIVE : SYLLOGISM OF THINKING 2 STATEMENTS (MAYOR PREMISE, MINOR PREMISE)

MAKE THE CONCLUSION

EXAMPLE OF SYLOGISM :

- ALL CREATURES HAVE EYES (MAYOR PREMISE)

- HUSIN IS A CREATURE(MINOR PREMISE)

20

SO : HUSIN HAS EYES

(CONCLUSION)

21

-ALL CREATURES HAVE EYES

- HUSEIN HAS EYES

22

SO : ALL OF CREATURES ARE HUSEIN  

WRONG

23

SHOULD BE :

HUSEIN IS A CREATURE

24

ALL ANIMALS HAVE EYES

HUSEIN HAS EYES  

25

CONCLUSION

HUSEIN IS AN ANIMAL

26

A VALID CONCLUSION DEPENDS ON :

1. THE TRUTH OF THE MAJOR PREMISE 2. THE TRUTH OF THE MINOR PREMISE 3. VALIDITY OF MAKING THE CONCLUSION

EXPL.:

-ALL CITIZENS SHOULD PAY THE TAX

- THE POOR ARE CITIZENS 

27

SO : THE POOR SHOULD PAY THE TAX

FALSE

28

CRITERIA OF TRUTH

THEORY OFCOHERENCE

THEORY OFCORRESPONDENCE

THEORY OFPRAGMATICS

(DEDUCTIVE/ IDEALISM)

(EMPIRICAL)

(PRACTICAL)

29

THEORY OF COHERENCE : (PLATO & ARISTOTELES)THEORY OF COHERENCE : (PLATO & ARISTOTELES)

A PROPOSITION MAY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE IFIT COHERES WITH OTHER PROPOSITIONS WHICH ARE KNOWN TO BE TRUEBUT IT IS NOT SUGGESTED THAT THE TRUTH OFTHESE PROPOSITIONS LIES IN THEIR COHERENCE

EXAMPLE : 3+4 = 7 3

1 1 1

+ 4

1 1 1 1

= 7

1+1+1+1+1+1+1

MATH IS PROVED BY COHERENCE THEORY.AXIOM THEOREM

30

THEORY OF CORRESPONDENCE (BERTRAND RUSSEL

THE CLAIM THAT TRUTH IS : IN AGREEMENT WITH REALITYTHAT IS CONSISTS OF A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN A STATEMENT AND THE WAY THINGS ARE A RELATIONAL PROPERTY, THAT WHATEVER IS TRUE (SENTENCE, STATEMENT, PROPOSITION) IS TRUE BY ITS RELATION TO SOMETHING ELSE, USUALLY A FACT

EXAMPLE : THE CAPITAL OF THE REPUBLIK OF INDONESIA IS JAKARTA

TRUE : BECAUSE THAT STATEMENT CORRESPONDS WITH THE OBJECT AS A FACT.

31

THEORY OF PRAGMATICS (CHARLES PIERCE)

IDEAS BECOME TRUE JUST SO FAR AS THEY HELP US TO GET INTO SATISFACTORY RELATIONSWITH OTHER PARTS OF OUR EXPERIENCE.(FOR ACTUAL USE ONLY).

32

KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE

MENTAL WEALTHMENTAL WEALTH

ART (SUBJECTIVE)

TRIES TO GIVE THE MEANING OF THE OBJECT PERSONAL IN CHARACTER

RELIGION DEPENDS ON FAITH GO INTO THE TRANSCENDENTAL SPHERE

SCIENCE EXTRACTION OF EXPLANATIONS OF NATURE AN INSTRUMENT TO PREDICT AND TO “CONTROL” THE UNIVERSE GENERAL & IMPERSONAL IN CHARACTER

33

PROBLEMPROBLEMSOLVING

ANSWERANSWER

KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE SOLVING

THE VALIDTHE VALIDKNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE

THE VALIDTHE VALIDANSWERANSWER

SCIENTIFICSCIENTIFICMETHODMETHOD

HOW COULD HOW COULD KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGEBE VALID ?BE VALID ?

EPISTEMOLOGYEPISTEMOLOGY

34

ANY KNOWLEDGEANY KNOWLEDGE

WHAT ? WHAT ? (ONTOLOGY)(ONTOLOGY)

HOW ?HOW ?WHY ?WHY ?

(EPISTEMOLOGY)(EPISTEMOLOGY)

PURPOSE ? PURPOSE ? (AXIOLOGY)(AXIOLOGY)

RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER

35

CANCER

SCIENCE

CAUSEETIOLOGY

PHYSICALCHEMICALETC

MECHANISM

CELL CHARACTERISTICS

TREATMENTRADIATIONCHEMOTHERAPYGEN THERAPY

EXP.EXP.

36

DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGEDEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE

MYTH & SUPERSTITIONGODS AND GODDESSES

COMMON SENSE(TRIAL AND ERROR)

APPLIED ART IRRIGATIONS MONUMENTS BOROBUDUR PYRAMID TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

o QUANTITATIVEo DESCRIPTIVEo PHENOMENALo NARROW SCOPEo IT DOESN’T DEVELOP THE THEORY

37

COMMON SENSECOMMON SENSE (Trial & Error)(Trial & Error) THE BEGINNING OF SCIENCE ACCORDING TO RANDELL & BUCHLER

o KNOWLEDGE THROUGH EXPERIENCESo UNINTENTIONALo SPORADIC

ACCORD TO TITUSo CHARACTERIZED BY REPETITION/HABIT/TRADITIONo BASICALLY UNCLEARo UNTESTED KNOWLEDGE

EXPL : THE SUN GOES AROUND THE EARTH

DOGMATIC

38

o WELLS :

THE GREEKS : THE FATHER OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHODTHE MOSLEMS : THE STEP-FATHER OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

o ROGER BACON (1214-1294) INTRODUCED EXPERIMENTAL METHOD IN WESTERN CIVILZATIONo FRANCIS BACON (1561-1626) ESTABLISHED THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD AS A SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM

AS A RESULT PRODUCED AMMUNITION

39

THE PIONEERS OF DEDUCTIVE & INDUCTIVE THINKING.o COPERNICUS (1473-1543)o KEPLER (1571-1630)o GALILEO (1546-1642)o NEWTON (1642-1727)

KARL PEARSON (1857-1938)1890 : THE GRAMMAR OF SCIENCE ABOUT

THE SCIENTIFIC METHODSCIENTIST WHO MADE MAJOR DISCOVERIES USINGTHE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD :

o HELMHOLTZo PASTEURo DARWINo MAXWELL

1910 : JOHN DEWEY.“HOW WE THINK”ABOUT THE STEPS OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

40

SCIENTIFIC METHODSCIENTIFIC METHOD

o A PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN A SCIENCE

METHOD : THE WAY TO KNOW SOMETHING (SENN) USING THE SYSTEMATIC STEPS

METHODOLOGY : THE INVESTIGATION OF THE METHODS USED TO GET RESULTS

EPISTEMOLOGY : HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE METHOD

41

SCIENTIFIC METHOD.SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

o THE EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT WORK/WAY OF THINKINGo CHARACTERISTICS :

RATIONAL (DEDUCTIVE, COHERENT) TESTED (INDUCTIVE, CORRESPONDS)

A STATEMENT IS TRUE IF SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS

42

SCIENTIFIC METHODSCIENTIFIC METHOD

o LOGICO-HYPOTHETICO-VERIFICATIVELOGICO-HYPOTHETICO-VERIFICATIVE

o CONTINUOUS CONJUGATION (INTERACTION) BETWEENCONTINUOUS CONJUGATION (INTERACTION) BETWEEN

DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION (TYNDALL)DEDUCTION AND INDUCTION (TYNDALL)

43

LITERATURESTUDY (LOGIC)

FORMULATETHE PROBLEMS

ARRANGEMENTOF THE CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK

ARRANGEMENT OFTHE RELEVANT PREMISES

FORMULATEFORMULATETHE HYPOTHESISTHE HYPOTHESIS

TEMPORARYANSWER

VERIFICATION PROVE THE HYPOTHESISPROVE THE HYPOTHESIS

SCIENTIFIC SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROCESSRESEARCH PROCESS

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONNEW THEORYNEW THEORY

PROBLEMSPROBLEMS

44

45

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SCIENCE :SCIENCE :

CAN BE CONSIDERED AS :CAN BE CONSIDERED AS :A PRODUCTA PROCESSAN ETHICAL PARADIGM

ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTANDATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OR THE PRODUCT/PROCESSTHE NATURE OR THE PRODUCT/PROCESS

46

CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE ARE : CHARACTERISTICS OF SCIENCE ARE :

HAS THE POWER TO PREDICTHAS THE POWER TO PREDICT

CAN BE PROVENCAN BE PROVEN

47

TECHNOLOGYTECHNOLOGY : :

AN APPLIED SCIENCE WHICH ISAN APPLIED SCIENCE WHICH IS

ALREADY DEVELOPEDALREADY DEVELOPED

INCLUDES HARDWEAR AND SOFTWEARINCLUDES HARDWEAR AND SOFTWEAR

48

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS THE POWERSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HAS THE POWER

TO DOMINATE NATURE, HUMAN BEING,TO DOMINATE NATURE, HUMAN BEING,

AND CIVILIZATIONAND CIVILIZATION

49

SCIENCE AS A PROCESS :SCIENCE AS A PROCESS :

IS A SOCIAL ACTIVITYIS A SOCIAL ACTIVITY ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE,ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE, HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR BEHAVIOURSHUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR BEHAVIOURS WHATEVER THEY AREWHATEVER THEY ARE

SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS CHARACTERIS TICS: RATIONALRATIONAL OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE

50

SCIENCE SCIENCE AS A PRODUCTAS A PRODUCT : :

ALL KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS PRODUCEDALL KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS PRODUCED

THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BELONG TOTHROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BELONG TO

THE PUBLICTHE PUBLIC SCIENCE IS LIMITED TO FORMULATIONS SCIENCE IS LIMITED TO FORMULATIONS

AND STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE AGREED UPONAND STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE AGREED UPON

BY ALL SCIENTISTSBY ALL SCIENTISTS

SUBJECT TO PROOF SO, A THEORY

AT ANY TIME COULD BE ABROGATED

51

SCIENCE AS AN ETHICAL PARADIGMSCIENCE AS AN ETHICAL PARADIGM

ACCORDING TO MERTON, SCIENCE IS A SOCIETY WHICH HOLDSTO FOUR NORMS : UNIVERSALISMUNIVERSALISM COMMUNALISMCOMMUNALISM DISINTERESTEDNESSDISINTERESTEDNESS SKEPTICALSKEPTICAL

52

UNIVERSALISM :UNIVERSALISM : IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON :• RACE

• SKIN COLOR• CIVILIZATION/RELIGION

COMMUNALISM :• SCIENCE BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC

DISINTERESTEDNESS :• SCIENCE IS NOT FOR PROPAGANDA OR PUBLICITY

SKEPTICAL:• TRUTHS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVED WITHOUT EVIDENCE

53

TECHNOLOGY :TECHNOLOGY :

GOAL :GOAL : TO SOLVE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS TO OVERCOME DIFFICULTIES THAT PEOPLE ARE FACED WITH

OFTERS SOME ALTERNATIVES TO OVERCOME PROBLEMS

54

FRANCIS BACON :FRANCIS BACON :

• SCIENCE IS POWERSCIENCE IS POWER

• TECHNOLOGY IS THE TOOL OF POWERTECHNOLOGY IS THE TOOL OF POWER

55

POWER OVER HUMAN-BEINGSPOWER OVER HUMAN-BEINGS

• EXPERIENCED BY UNDER-DEVELOPEDEXPERIENCED BY UNDER-DEVELOPED

COUNTRIESCOUNTRIES

• TECHNOLOGY IS CONTROLLED BY DEVELOPEDTECHNOLOGY IS CONTROLLED BY DEVELOPED

COUNTRIESCOUNTRIES

56

POWER OVER CULTUREPOWER OVER CULTURE TECHNOLOGY INFLUENCES TRADITIONALTECHNOLOGY INFLUENCES TRADITIONAL CULTURECULTURE

e.g. VIA TELEVISION

POWER OVER NATUREPOWER OVER NATURE WITH TECHNOLOGY, MAN CAN DESTROYWITH TECHNOLOGY, MAN CAN DESTROY IT’S OWN SPECIESIT’S OWN SPECIES

57

SCIENCE FROM A MORAL PERSPECTIVESCIENCE FROM A MORAL PERSPECTIVE

SCIENCE TRIES TO EXPRESS A REALITY SCIENCE TRIES TO EXPRESS A REALITY

AS A FACT (DAS SEIN)AS A FACT (DAS SEIN) MORALS BASICALLY INDICATEMORALS BASICALLY INDICATE

WHAT ONE SHOULD DO WITH THEIR LIFEWHAT ONE SHOULD DO WITH THEIR LIFE

(DAS SOLLEN)(DAS SOLLEN)

58

SCIENCE AND MORALITY ARE CATEGORIZEDSCIENCE AND MORALITY ARE CATEGORIZEDAS KNOWLEDGE, SO THEY :AS KNOWLEDGE, SO THEY :

HAVE :HAVE : 3 COMPONENTS3 COMPONENTS• ONTOLOGYONTOLOGY• EPISTEMOLOGYEPISTEMOLOGY• AXIOLOGYAXIOLOGY

THE ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP THE ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCIENCE AND MORAL SHOULDBETWEEN SCIENCE AND MORAL SHOULDBE BASED ON THOSE 3 COMPONENTSBE BASED ON THOSE 3 COMPONENTS

59

ONTOLOGYONTOLOGY

SCOPE/BORDER OF THE OBJECTSCOPE/BORDER OF THE OBJECT INTERPRETATION OF THE ESSENCEINTERPRETATION OF THE ESSENCE OF REALITY (METAPHYSIC) OF THE OBJECTOF REALITY (METAPHYSIC) OF THE OBJECT

EPISTEMOLOGY :EPISTEMOLOGY : HOW TO GET AND TO ARRANGE THE OBJECT HOW TO GET AND TO ARRANGE THE OBJECT OF SCIENCE AS A BODY OF KNOWLEDGEOF SCIENCE AS A BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

AXIOLOGYAXIOLOGY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE USE OF A SCIENCETHE PRINCIPLES OF THE USE OF A SCIENCE

60

ONTOLOGICAL APPROACHONTOLOGICAL APPROACH ONTOLOGICALLY, SCIENCE IS LIMITED ONTOLOGICALLY, SCIENCE IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE RANGE OF HUMAN EXPERIENCESONLY TO THE RANGE OF HUMAN EXPERIENCES THE SCOPE OF SCIENCE THAT IS EMPIRICAL INTHE SCOPE OF SCIENCE THAT IS EMPIRICAL IN CHARACTER, IS CONSISTENT WITH THECHARACTER, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF SCIENCE THAT ANYEPISTEMOLOGY OF SCIENCE THAT ANY CONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE VERIFIEDCONCLUSIONS SHOULD BE VERIFIED SCIENTIFICALLY (SCIENTIFICALLY (DEDUCTIONS WHICH AREDEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE VERIFIED AND FREE FROM DOGMATIC VALUESVERIFIED AND FREE FROM DOGMATIC VALUES))

EINSTEIN :EINSTEIN :SCIENCE STARTS WITH THE FACT, ANDSCIENCE STARTS WITH THE FACT, ANDEND WITH FACT, NO MATTER THEEND WITH FACT, NO MATTER THEVARIETY OF THEORIES IN BETWEENVARIETY OF THEORIES IN BETWEEN

61

METAPHYSIC (WHICH IS BASED ONMETAPHYSIC (WHICH IS BASED ON REALITY = DAS SEIN) REFUSE TO INCORPORATEREALITY = DAS SEIN) REFUSE TO INCORPORATE MORAL PREMISES WHICH ARE NECESSITYMORAL PREMISES WHICH ARE NECESSITY IN CHARACTER (DAS SOLLEN)IN CHARACTER (DAS SOLLEN)

IT SHOULD BE :IT SHOULD BE :SCIENCE SHOULD BE THE TOOL TO REALIZESCIENCE SHOULD BE THE TOOL TO REALIZETHE MORAL ASPECT OF THE GOALTHE MORAL ASPECT OF THE GOAL

62

17 PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY IN SCIENCE17 PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY IN SCIENCE

EPISTEMOLOGIEPISTEMOLOGI SCIENTIFIC METHOD SCIENTIFIC METHOD

MORAL ASPECTSMORAL ASPECTS

1. SEEKS THE TRUTH1. SEEKS THE TRUTH2. SHOULD BE DONE HONESTY2. SHOULD BE DONE HONESTY3. WITHOUT SELF-INTEREST3. WITHOUT SELF-INTEREST4. BASED ON ARGUMENTS4. BASED ON ARGUMENTS5. BELIEF IN RATIONAL THINKING5. BELIEF IN RATIONAL THINKING6. BELIEF IN OBJECTIVE VERIFICATION6. BELIEF IN OBJECTIVE VERIFICATION7. BASED ON THE CRITICAL THINKING7. BASED ON THE CRITICAL THINKING IN MAKING OF CONCLUSIONSIN MAKING OF CONCLUSIONS8. FREE/OPEN TO CRITICISM8. FREE/OPEN TO CRITICISM9. PRAGMATIC9. PRAGMATIC10. DOESN’T CHANGE GOD’S WILL 10. DOESN’T CHANGE GOD’S WILL FOR HUMAN BEINGS/HUMAN NATUREFOR HUMAN BEINGS/HUMAN NATURE

63

ONTOLOGY ONTOLOGY EMPIRICALEMPIRICAL (DAS SEIN)(DAS SEIN)

MORAL ASPECTSMORAL ASPECTS

11. NO ABRIDGEMENT OF 11. NO ABRIDGEMENT OF

HUMAN VALUESHUMAN VALUES

12. NO INTERFERENCE IN12. NO INTERFERENCE IN

HUMAN LIFEHUMAN LIFE

13. NEUTRAL FROM DOGMATIC13. NEUTRAL FROM DOGMATIC

VALUESVALUES

64

AXIOLOGY AXIOLOGY UTILIZATION UTILIZATION

MORAL ASPECTSMORAL ASPECTS RAISES THE STANDARD OF RAISES THE STANDARD OF LIVING WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNTLIVING WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT

14. HUMAN NATURE14. HUMAN NATURE

15. HUMAN VALUE15. HUMAN VALUE

16. BALANCE/CONSERVATION16. BALANCE/CONSERVATION

OF THE ENVIRONMENTOF THE ENVIRONMENT

17. COMMUNAL & UNIVERSAL17. COMMUNAL & UNIVERSAL

Philosophy of Medicine: Models of Medical Knowledge and Practice

Biomedic Model, Art, Holistic

• Hipocrates, Galen: “Teori Humoral”

• Abad 16-17an: Andreas Vesalius and William Harvey.

• Abad 19: “sellular dan molecular”

• Biomedic Model

• Art of Medicine

• Holistic

Biomedic Vs Humanistic

Metaphysics Epistemology Ethics

Biomedicalmodel

Mechanistic monism

Objective knowledge

Emotionally detached concern

Humanisticmodels

Dualism/holism Subjective knowledge

Empathic care

Metaphysics