Cultural Realism and Experimental Science
Organizational culture and theoretical frameworks as the electrons have a number of important commonalities. First, the actual people themselves, in principle, invisible to the naked eye, so while their “reality” has been debated and no doubt, affect they have on what can be seen and measured a very, very real – if only the Cartesian skeptic questioned their existence. Secondly, perhaps the most convincing argument in favor of the realism of the electrons and the organizational culture is that they both can be used as powerful tools, tools that can be deployed on purpose, that the difference in the physical world. In the case of electrons, they can be sprayed with the radiators on the phosphorus content on the back of the television screens to create images of Super Bowl commercials, as well as implemented through the miles of wire to power lights and other devices to entire cities. In the case of organizational culture, it can be used to teach people how to see the world – a powerful tool for sending messages, how to do it all over here. ” Strong cultural norms about that (and it is not) acceptable behavior in the workplace can be powerful forms how people “see” themselves, others and the world around them. Thus, although the organizational culture may be invisible, it’s not a toy and a lasting epistemological and philosophical basis for cultural and realism, as a culture of work in organizations is one of the key elements for a more accurate description of that culture, how it works, and how it can be used to create positive change.
Ian Hacking books, representing and interference, is a refreshing, provocative and menacing defense of scientific realism. Although the book is a classic introduction to the philosophy of science, but also provides an understanding of penetrating into the developing of cultural realism, based on solid experimental and scientific foundations. Those representing the intermediate and coincide with the concepts of the theory (representing) and experiment (intermediate) and follow the often debated question, “comes first, theory and experiment.” Hacking also discusses the difference between the theoretical constructs (theory and mathematical formalisms that we are building to describe the behavior of physical phenomena) and the theoretical entities (the invisible, we measure in the physical world, as electrons). Create a crystal clear distinction between theoretical constructs and theoretical education important for understanding the intricacies of scientific debate between realism and post-deconstructionist modern views, especially when it comes to creating a naturalistic view of cultural realism and organizational culture.
The first half of the book Hacking focuses on the concept of “representation” and begins with a serious consideration of the various accounts of scientific rationality and objectivity. Opinion of Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, Hilary Putnam, Bas van Fraassen, Nancy Cartwright, and other major scholars in philosophy of science expert estimated and theoretical compromises purchases in each submission clearly defined. Hacking also describes, where it agrees (disagrees) with different perspectives as compared to his point of view of scientific realism. The second part of the book is devoted to the concept of “intermediate” and is one of the most detailed and compelling philosophical analysis of experimental science in the press. Hacking is a detailed report on the history of science to show that experimental science has its own life, regardless of the theoretical constructs that are more theoretically oriented scientists built.
To break (and Putnam), it is “real” when he makes a physical difference. If he does not do the physical differences, it is not realistic. In other words, when the theoretical organization, such as electrons, which in principle can not see can be used to systematically affect what is visible in a causal manner (TV), then these people are real in every sense of the word. How to hack said
“As far as I can tell, if you can spray them, they are real … experimental work gives strong evidence for scientific realism. This is not because the testing of hypotheses about the entities. This is because the person that the principles can not be ’seen’ regularly manipulated to prepare a new phenomena and to explore other aspects of nature. They are tools, instruments, not to think but to do so. “
