I was reading a philosophy article, which just talked about "the functions of..." (the subject was law, but that isn't what I'm interested in now). I am not being able to find any introductory philosophy text on "function", not even in Wikipedia (apart from entries on mathematical functions). What is a function?

I would like to know the panel's view on: 1. Did the laws of physics theoretically exist before the Big Bang, just waiting to come into force? Are these laws the only way they could possibly be? 2. Is there any reason why science should eventually hit a brick wall beyond which stuff is unknowable (rather than unknown)? Many thanks for all your comments on this wonderful site.

Are there many instances in science (or other disciplines) of Occam's Razor being wrong? What prompts this question is the recent thread in the Religion section about Katrina and the problem of evil but I didn't post it there because of the 'faith' issues of some respondents and philosphers quoted. No visiting alien intelligence new to our planet would plump for, say, Islam though they might have their own non-Occamish explanation I suppose. I mean, generally, does the law of parsimony hold water?

I know a little that Galileo changed the Aristotelian world view; but would like to learn more. What is the Aristotelian world view? How did Galileo change it? Could you please give me some explanation? And it would be most appreciated if you kindly suggest me some helpful webpages. THANKS

Since all science is inductive (based on limited observation of patterns), to what extent does science prove anything? Are all scientific conclusions ultimately reducible to theoretical speculation? If so, how can we ever speak of causes in nature?

What is relationship of philosophy (in particular, metaphysics) to physics? It seems to me that both disciplines, especially the "classical" metaphysics of the Ancient Greeks and the medieval Christians, attempt to understand the structure of reality, but physics focuses on the development of the material world of matter, metaphysics primarily aims at understanding the non-material world (including how it is related to and shapes the material world). Is this an adequate understanding? I would be very interested to hear your opinion(s) on this subject.

i gleaned from a review of d. dennett's "darwin's dangerous idea" the notion that scientists' dogmatic insistence upon a purely materialist frame of reference may not be as justified as most students my age probably assume (also that scientists have brought this view to bear not simply in academia but in the political arena as well). the review included this outrageous quote from feyerabend: "scientists are not content with running their own playpens in accordance with what they regard as the rules of the scientific method, they want to universalize those rules, they want them to become part of society at large, and they use every means at their disposal -- argument, propaganda, pressure tactics, intimidation, lobbying -- to achieve their aims." all this is really kind of extraordinary to me! i really don't think that many studets my age were raised to question science on such a level (i'm pretty sure that if we did at this point, we'd be laughed out of the classroom as kooky i.d. proponents). i don't...

Dear Philosophers, When philosophers write about scientific method, are they proposing a description of the actual practices of scientists or are they attempting to produce a normative theory of what science should be like? If it's the former, then shouldn't this be answered by historical study and not philosophy? If the latter, why do philosophers talking about scientific method bother to look at the history of science at all if one cannot gurantee an 'ought' from an 'is'? BMW

Is it possible for science to come to a conclusion regarding the origin of the universe?

Is there any fundamental difference between an individual's beliefs (say, religious belief) and empirical knowledge (say, scientific knowledge)? The former is clearly based on faith: the individual believes that e.g. God exists because he believes what his religious texts, his parents, his teachers, his peers, the media he chooses to consume say. But is that not the same in the latter case? The individual believes that Earth is round as opposed to flat, not because he has actually seen Earth from above or performed any other relevant experiments, but simply because he believes the textbooks, his parents, his teachers, his peers, and the media. The average individual's "knowledge" that the Earth is round is based entirely on hearsay. The same holds true for many other "facts" (even non-empirical, a priori ones). In this light, isn't our level of assuredness in these facts rather irrational and quasi-religious?