Philosophy of Science vs Studying Science studying what vs how of knowledge

[charlie cho]

What do you think? Will the content of knowledge we bring be corrupted if the "HOW" and the "philosophy of science" is inept? Maybe it isn't really about "what" you know, but "how" you know it. 

My interest is not in what most scientists are right now. My interest lies simply on what makes a great scientist. I mean Tesla Einstein level scientist. How much did they devote their time on the philosophy of science as well as the "what" of science, the content? 

Watching a lot of books about Einstein, David Bohm's philosophy, some Chemistry journals, Thomas Kuhn, Leo's videos, Forensic Science text books, Dr. Henry Lee's Cracking Cases (an account of a Chinese American Detective of all his homicide cases), Feynman's biographies and his lectures.... I have found one thing in common. Their respect for the philosophy of science is immense. Mostly, they got the inspiration to learn about the "How" of science from a very young age. It was so deeply seeped into their souls that they did not need to necessarily read a book about "philosophy of science" to do excel in the field. 

My question still remains however, should we first understand the "how" of science before seeping into the "what" of science alas we gain corrupted knowledge? I don't want corrupted knowledge. I've seen the dangers of it in my life in other fields. What do you guys think? 

[Moksha]

What do I think?

Although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is – for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know.

The gift of my Ph.D. was realizing how little I actually know. Life has drilled that lesson into my soul.

Conceptual knowledge is bound to relative reality. Ultimate knowledge is directly realized. Value each according to its worth.

[RobertZ]

What we know seems to be imperfect. My knowledge is rooted in my limited experience and individual instance. I can observe my experience and ask other people about their experience. 
 

In western medieval philosophy, ‘how’ is a subset of ‘what.’ There are four components of ‘what’: potential, agent,  what (proper), and for what purpose. The word ‘how’ measures  the reduction of ‘potential’ into the category of ‘what.’ For example, a person burns a piece of wood into ashes to keep herself warm. The wood has various potentials—including a reduction into ashes. Scientific ‘how’ measures the very complex chemical processes of ignition. 
 

There seems to be more speculation in the question, “What is fire” than in human knowledge of the chemical reactions involved in burning, or in the purpose of fire. As The angel told Descartes in a dream, ‘The dominion of nature is in weight and measurement.’ 
 

To me—do you prefer to spend your time thinking about ‘how’ or ‘what’? 

Edited June 17, 2021 by RobertZ