Why am I here?

I guess that I am some kind of a philosopher.

My interest in philosophy was from berth, but I got more in to it in the time I have finished my second degree in biology. It began when I tried to conclude my results in the thesis that was on creation of catalytic peptides in prebiotic environment. The reactions that I tryed to describe were unfamiliar and very complex. I had a lot of data, and it did not make any sense. To try to solve the problem I started to use mathematics. I tried to figure out how these graphs can be correlated to any chemical reaction. In the beginning no standard chemical equation could describe the graphs. but then I started to think about the equations and what do they mean to the atoms and molecules that participate in the reactions. Then, only, I could start to revile the underling mechanism behind the graphs. I found out that I have to use more complex equations in order to describe the graphs. I found out that according to my equations the different tests and their graphs describe three interacting chemical reactions. To test and see if my equations describes the reactions correctly, I made some further tests, I which I changed the parameters to yet, untested levels and interactions, and waited to see if the indicators of the reactions will behave according to their predicted behavior by the equations. To my relief they did behave according to expectations.

An there I was a biology student, dealing with chemical reactions that he was never thought how to deal with, and with equations complexity levels I have never been instructed on, and yet, This complex system worked to my satisfaction.

The examiner of my thesis was a biochemistry professor, and he gave me 95 grade on the work. He was all shining and pleased from what I have done. Yet I was never thought chemistry in a proper way.

How this marvel was done? Why did mathematic was so important for science? to further understand that, I started a Ph.D. in signal transduction in cells. These signal transductions are also are very complex mechanism. I tried to use mathematic to describe the underling mechanism, and to subject further empirical tests, to see if the equations can explain and revel more complex results.

But then thing become far more complex for my knowladge. Because I didn't come from the field of cell culturing, I had to learn a lot in order to control the cells. To avoid this, I worked with another Ph.D. student that knew how to handle the cells. the results in the beginning were very promising, and I could replicate the graphs. But then the other student move to Australia, and I was given another Ph.D student to make the tests. And then we found out that the results of the second student, in the same conditions are not the same. Ops...

Further more, because I was shifting from one era of research to another, I found out a new models. I tried to figure out what made them build such models. On what evidences are they basing themselves? It seems that they take for granted something, that I do no take for granted.

Further, I started to read a lot of papers (something I almost did not do in my second degree), and I have found out that scientists use some kind of logic, which I was not familiar with. They got from some prepositions to some conclusions in a way I could not follow. I tried really hard to understand this, but could not understand. When I asked my mentor to explain how this is being done, he murmured and said "just read the conclusions, it is OK." and then I asked, how do you know if the conclusions are right? And he answered "I know that they all hate each other [the scientists], and if they will find out any mistake, they will scream out loud". ... hemm... good point. But where is the logic?

To find out, I searched in the books of the philosophers. I guessed that if the philosophers work with logic and knowledge all their life, they probably know something about the scientific logic. The only book I found in our biology library was "The logic of scientific discovery" of Karl Popper. I read parts of it, which seemed relevant to what I needed. And then got back to the scientific papers. I tried to match Popper's theory to what I have read. It gave me some help, but it was far from describing what I have seen.

In this stage, my mentor became very furious on me. I was wasting time to try to understand something which other students take for granted. It wasn't long, before I was kicked from the lab.

To try to understand the scientific reasoning, I then searched for place where I can study philosophy of science. I registered to the program of History and Philosophy of Science, in Bar-Ilan University.

The courses there were very annoying for me and very disturbing. They were, what I know now "social constructivists". Kuhn, Brono Latur, Feyerabend , Schifer and other memebers of the gang, were the stars of the program. For someone that was raised in science, and felt the strong persuasive power of evidence and maneuvering successfully in a very complex chemistry and laboratory equipment, all this Costuctrucivist mambo seemed very stupid at first. How can they explain what I have witnessed with my own eyes? For the first two Years I tried to rebuff their thesis. I could see allot of problems in their theories. But because they where the dominant thinkers in the program, I had to write works against their thesis's, I had to think very closely about what they claimed. Eventually I saw they have a point. Some of the science I was doing did evolve from social constructions. But, it was not all social constructions as the constructionist proclaimed. Much of what they said was because they were not acquainted enough with the real laboratory life. The researchers there, when doing a research on scientists, did not understand the concepts on which the scientists worked, and there fore gave them their own interpretations. Bruno La tour, although very good in rhetoric could have been falsified very quickly, if he tried to show his results to scientists. Further more, the constructivists fail to explain how theories work so well in technology. The black-box theory is very nice, but will not stand any criticism outside the constructivists' sphere.

Being frustrated from the lack of ability of philosophers, that I meet, to explain science, I ventured further on outside the boundaries of the program. I carefully reread Popper, and I read others like Descartes, Bacon, Mill, Hume, Kant, Quine, Hampel, Mach, Reichenbach, Witgenstain, Husserl. Because I was biologists by education, I enterd also in to the knowledge of cognitive sciences. I looked for an answer everywhere, but found very limited answers.

From those readings, and from my experience in science, I have developed a new model which try to explain science as I know it, in accordance to the entire thesis and critisicem I have found.

It took me three years to come with the first model, and the in a very slow process I showed it to philosophers in Israel. They all gave me a comment that it is interesting, but they do not know what to do with it. It was too basic. Some, although, were very interested, but it was out of their specific field, and could not help me develop this model.

After four years, I still could not get any mentor, and the university (This time, Bar-Ilan University), kicked me out.

And this is where I stand today. I can not find a mentor. I have a good model, I think, but I have lack of ability in philosophical writing. Therefore, I thought to use the internet, to polish my model, get feedbacks, and to learn step by step, how to write my model in a philosophical convincing way. This is where I need your help. Please comment. Comment on my English. Comment on the way I write. Comment on the model. Comment on everything you think is necessary. And if you know some mentor that could help me introduce the model, please let him read the model.

Yours,

Tal