The Problems of Philosophy of Science

       I.            THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY (Karl Raimund Popper)

THEORY

In the work of Karl R Popper 's The Logic of Scientific Discovery , there are two major claims about knowledge claims . First , Popper's falsification method , or test the knowledge of the truth not to describe the hypothesis , but by putting a negation - negation . Secondly , the knowledge and not the knowledge is distinguished from the preposition - preposition . Only preposition science that are resistant to falsification .[1]

1.      Issues Induction

Problem of induction can be formulated as a question about how to determine the truth of universal statements that are based on the experience of such hypotheses and theoretical systems of empirical science . Many people believe that the truth of universal statements known by observation , but it is clear that a report on the experience of first observation can only be a single statement .[2]

Induction method is executed with experiments and observations , therefore induction method is the hallmark of science and consequently allows to distinguish between science and every unscientific approach.

The difficulty of this induction method put forward by David Hume . He stressed that a number of facts can not be logically deduced a general truth .[3] In Hume's theory that suggests " causal reasons " . Hume said that out of the awareness of the present moment requires us to think about the experiences that are the cause or the result of events that did not happen this time .[4]

2.      Deductive testing the theories

According to Popper's view of testing methods critically theories always run on the following lines . Of a new idea proposed temporary and not justified by any means . The conclusions drawn by means of logical deduction . This conclusion is then compared to each other so that the logical relation is found .

There are four steps that can be taken in testing a theory . First , the comparison logical conclusions to test the internal consistency of the system . Secondly , the investigation on the logical form of the theory to determine whether it has the characteristics of empirical theory or not . Third , comparisons with other theories , with the goal to determine whether to form a theory that scientific progress should withstand a wide range of testing . And fourth , through the application of empirical testing of theory  conclusions .

The purpose of this type of testing is to determine how far the consequences of the new theory - consideration it can withstand the demands of practical .[5]

3.      The issue of demarcation

Vienna neighborhood trying to formulate what is called the " verification principle " means the principle that is used to distinguish between empirical science and metaphysics . But Popper ask some criticism of the verification principle . First , that the verification principle can not be used to declare the truth of general laws . Secondly , based on the principle of verification metaphysics is meaningless . Third , to investigate the truth of a theory , the theory must be understood first. The problem is how to separate the demarcation between scientific fields and non - scientific fields using premises that can be claimed harm .[6]

Popper gives way to distinguish between an offer science and not science using falsification . Differentiation character by Popper termed the " demarcation criteria or restrictions " will help us to understand what science is .

Science is distinguished from other sciences such as Freudianism as hypothesis - the hypothesis can be through falsification tests while in Freudianism can not test through falsification tests . The emphasis of this problem is more to declare that the stated object of science coverage in terms of a method that can be accounted for .[7]

4.      Falsification

Popper solved the problem of induction by substituting falsification. Scientists are no longer required to undergo an induction process to draw general conclusions by examining its particular realities . Instead, the truth is tested to test the qualifications of the general truth claims . Observation and testing various particular assumptions not to be mandatory because the theories deductively proven by rigorous testing against existing theoretical framework . If the test is found that the theory predicts the evidence in the statement is wrong , we know that the theory itself is wrong.[8]

From the results of his thinking that he managed to thrust a solution to the problem of induction as well as change the whole traditional view of science . According to him , a greeting or a scientific theory because it is not proven , but being testable ( testable ) . And if a theory is tested remained resistant after , then it means that the truth strengthened ( corroboration ) . More likely to deny it , the truth is also more robust , if the theory continues to hold .[9]

EXAMPLE

All swans are white

ANALYSIS
When we observe the usual circumstances, indeed we find most swans white definitely. The thinking way of using induction logic, i.e. a general deduction with researching some facts.

What if we use the theory of deduction, which blends between the researchers and the comparison can corroborate their respective arguments as the breakdown of the first theory. Here the Popper asks us to find one Swan is white is not alone, it's either gray or brown. Because he thought a goose that had given the new scientific discoveries are not just resting on a mere delusion and the experiments without looking at the facts. It proves the process of inductive logic is not logical, although departing from the premises.

CONCLUSION
Falsification is a way or method to test knowledge by putting negation - negation , not to describe the truth of the hypothesis - the hypothesis . As for how to distinguish between science and not science is to use a preposition - preposition . Only knowledge that is resistant to falsification , and are not resistant to falsification is not a science .

---

[1] James Garvey, 20 Karya Filsafat Terbesar (Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius, 2014), 257.

[2] Karl Raimund Popper, LOGIKA PENEMUAN ILMIAH, trans. Saut pasaribu and Aji Sastrowardoyo (Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR, 2008), 4.

[3] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman (Jakarta: Gramedia, 1983), 72.

[4] James Garvey, The Twenty Greatest Phylosophy Books, 258.

[5] Karl Raimund Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 10–11.

[6] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 74–75.

[7] James Garvey, The Twenty Greatest Phylosophy Books, 265–266.

[8] Ibid., 261.

[9] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 73.

       I.            THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS (Thomas Khun)

THEORY

1.      Introduction : a role for history

Historians are very influential in the development of science because he has a major task . On one hand he must establish by what and at which the facts , the arguments , and theories of contemporary science were discovered or invented . On the other hand he had to decipher and explain the accumulation of errors , myths , and superstition who has filled faster accumulation and basic elements of science textbooks .

Normal science means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements , achievements that certain scientific communities on a giver when expressed as a foundation for further practice . Normal Science often emphasize new things are fundamental , because new things that require fundamental commitments demolishing of . However , as long as it maintains commitments arbitrary elements , the nature of the research itself normally ensure that the new thing will not be long under pressure . Sometimes a normal problem , namely the fitting can be solved with the rules and procedures that are already known .

Paradigm is the achievement that also has two characteristics above ( research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements and the achievement of certain stated by the scientific community as a conduit foundation for further practice ) , it is closely related to the paradigm of normal science .

In gathering the facts , there are three research focus for factual scientific investigation . The first is the class of facts that have been disclosed by the paradigm that it reveals the nature of things , ordinary second class but smaller than the facts rulings addressed to the facts that although often without much essential importance , can be compared with the forecasts direct paradigm theory , absorbing a third class , this class consists of reverse current empirical work undertaken to articulate the paradigm theory , solve the ambiguity and keeping the remaining ambiguities , and allows solving problems that were previously only attract attention , this class proved to be very important among all. Disability normal science , are the areas investigated by normal science , is very small , and limited view. However , these restrictions , which is born of the belief in a paradigm.

2.      Anomaly and the emergence of scientific discovery

The symptoms are new and unexpected exposed by scientific research , and the scientists doing the novelty - novelty fundamental facts and theories , this led to a change of paradigm . And it begins with the recognition of the existence of anomalous nature has somehow violated the paradigm driven by the expectation that controls normal science . Awareness of anomaly opens a period when adjusted conceptual categories - categories , so this anomaly raises awareness of all things new and fundamental science . With the harsh restrictions on the views of scientists and the strong resistance to change this paradigm and makes science more rigid . The emergence of anomalous background by the paradigm . The more appropriate paradigm to reach, the more sensitive indicator of the availability of the anomaly , and it strengthens the emergence of a paradigm shift and will penetrate existing knowledge to the core .

Awareness of the anomaly lasted so long and penetrated so deep that people can accurately describe the areas forged as the worsening crisis . Because of demand destruction massive paradigm and major changes in the problems and techniques of normal science , the emergence of theories that are generally preceded by a period of uncertainty very visible . Uncertainty caused by the failure always puzzles of normal science to respond as expected . Failure of existing rules is the prelude to search the new rules .

3.      Revolution

Revolutionary science is regarded as non-cumulative development in which , the old paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by a new paradigm to the contrary . Scientific revolution initiated by the growing awareness of , and limitations on the narrow subdivision of the scientific community , that an existing paradigm no longer function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature , the previous paradigm itself that shows the way for the exploration .

In the evolution of science , new knowledge must replace ignorance , not replace other types of knowledge that are not aligned . The existence of the creation of a new theory based on the three symptoms , the first consisting of the symptoms that have been clearly explained by existing paradigms , and these symptoms are rarely present or motif starting point for the formulation of the theory . The second consists of symptoms , symptoms that are indicated by existing paradigms , but the details of which can only be understood through further theory articulation . And the third symptom is recognized anomalies , whose characteristics are marked diversion in assimilation refused to exist. If paradigms paradigm change , the world will change with them . During the revolution scientists are using new instruments .[1]

EXAMPLE
The development of a wide range of anthropological paradigm, we take the example of the absence of materalisme with the basic paradigm of early by Karl Marx to change into a pardigma cultural materialism is prefaced by Leslie White and Julian Steward.

ANALYSIS
From various anthropology paradigm, that we take is the absence of Materalisme paradigm that originally propounded by Karl Marx which contains an attempt to explain the reasons for the development of the social system and the change of culture. That a structure and ideology in a society is determined by the mode of production and are convinced of the capitalist society has the seeds of destruction in the inherent contradiction between profit and desire to exploit labor. Changing the paradigm of Cultural Materialism that was pioneered by Leslie White and Julian Steward, explain sebeb for socio-cultural similarities and differences, known as "neo-evolusionisme" or "cultural ecology". This paradigm describes the modes of production and reproduction of social structures that affect society and ideological superstructure. Then with the new things that began to unfold by scientists as well as the development of normal science and reality begin is not able to answer the puzzle of the emergence of a new paradigm, then the old paradigm and start the revolution against the paradigm is inevitable.

 CONCLUSION

Paradigm means something that becomes the foundation for further science , and paradigms can bring a new science , normal science paradigm it must be owned , if it does not fit the paradigm of normal science which can not be regarded as a paradigm . The paradigm will shift if the discovery of a new paradigm that can revoke the root or foundation of the old paradigm , it is called a revolution .[1] Thomas S. Khun, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions PERAN PARADIGMA DALAM REVOLUSI SAINS, trans. Tjun Surjana (Bandung: PT REMAJA ROSDAKARYA, 2000).

       I.            CRITIC THEORIES (Jurgen Habermas)

THEORY

1.      EMPIRICAL HISTORY PHILOSOPHY WITH PRACTICAL PURPOSES

Habermas's conception of critical theory experienced significant development since the early work ( 1957 ) " literaturbericht zur Diskussion um philosophischen Marx unden marxismus " until the work was written later ( 1976 ) zur reconstruktion des historischen materialism . Intersection with analytical philosophy of science led to the renewal of thought, as can be seen in the debate that he did with the pioneering philosophical hermeneutics . Recently, a preliminary sketch of communication theory , assimilation with contemporary systems theory and design programmed on the theory of social evolution marked a major development in view of the methodological Habermas . However, a number of common characteristics that the original conception still identifiable in a statement that the latest : critical social theory is empirical without reducible to empirical - analytical science , but he is philosophical in the sense of criticism and not in the sense of first philosophy ; Last , it is historical without being historicist , and practical nature , but not in the sense of potential technological mastery -oriented but rather in the sense of enlightenment and emancipation .

Based on the previous discussion about how Habermas's view of philosophy , it is surprising that she was initially attracted to the idea of ​​the philosophy of history to explain the critical theory , because the philosophy of history is the most philosophical territory speculative .

Example : if people realize that the first discussion on this issue shows understood him with Marx 's dictum that the task of philosophy and the fruit can only be maintained through a " rejection of the earlier philosophy , that philosophy as a philosophy , " that philosophy can only be realized through sublasi . This support shown clear that Habermas does not use the term philosophy in the traditional sense as a " philosophy of origin " or " first philosophy " .

By doing so , Habermas's philosophy is understood as something that does not show a way of thinking that deserted modality (presuppositionless ) which is able to provide a foundation for himself ; nor showed ideals inherent in philosophy ( truth and reason , freedom and justice ) that can realized by means of philosophy itself .

Based on this standpoint , the difference between philosophy and science is determined by the relation of each to the practice . Technical rationality of science particular on the contrary , philosophy is universal rationality . The rationality of philosophy goes beyond the means of the relation because he sets his own and find his purpose .. practices are not beyond philosophy as happened in relation to science ; practice even the driving force behind the movement inher philosophical movement . With a philosophy to develop his thesis is not purely contemplative and then translate it into practice .. philosophy of life of uncertainty that is constantly updated in the unresolved tension between theory and practice , a tension that can only be lost through sublasi philosophy as philosophy . As in science , philosophy also is particular ; yet universal rationality ( as a philosophy ) is able to estimate the existing totality , without a whole ( to be philosophy ) is able to embrace the totality of the whole .

2.      UNDERSTANDING AND SOCIAL RESEARCH

In his methodological writings Habermas analyze all these approaches , and he always wears a strategy " concrete negation " . He considered each of these approaches is based on a framework that is claimed to be suitable for a general theory of society . There are none of these approaches are considered mixed up and wrong : each Habermas has shown " the truth " certain. At the same time is considered , which is true according to one approach is not necessarily considered to be true by other approaches . Thus , which then becomes very important is to explain the limits of different approaches before, determine what the situation was , in what way , and for what purpose they can be run properly . The purpose of this procedure is to establish an integrated framework in accordance with the general social theory at the same time retaining the positivist elements contained in earlier approaches .[1]

3.      LANGUAGE , HERMENEUTICS , IDEOLOGY AND FEEDBACK

In the English -speaking region , a major challenge for neopositivism logic of integrated science emerged from one of the veins of analytical philosophy itself: the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein - second . Wittgenstein 's own early work , the Tractatus , - so did the logical atomism russel and ideas wina - circle are the main source of logical positivism . As a number of commentators have noted , the initial conception is very smelly kantinan . The idea that logic includes everything that can be said to exceed the experience (ie , a prioiri ) , and that logic is able to express when uncovering factual discourse structure , very similar to the transcendental critique of pure reason kant above . In view of the perspective - second philosophy of Wittgenstein , language relations with the world are not theoretical but practical .

Meanwhile, in the development of hermeneutics , the art of interpreting texts , closely related to theology and jurisprudence.[2] In Zur Logik Den Sozialwissenschaften , Gadamer hermeneutical reflection methodologically placed with her ​​confront the ideas of Wittgenstein and winch . The fundamental difference between these ideas can be outlined as follows :

1)      Intertran Sibilitas between different natural languages ​​versus " monadologi language game " .

2)      The paradigm of translation between two languages ​​ versus socialization paradigm into a primary language .

3)      Emphasis to the history and tradition versus reproduction ahistorical and " cold " to other forms of life .

4)      The theoretical analysis of language attitudes versus practical attitude hermeneutical effort .[3]

In Gadamer's view , the rejection of the beliefs and values ​​because it is considered as a pure and simple mistakes are evidence of a failure of understanding . Habermas accepts , at least in outline , the argument that the interpreter must relate what would he understand the concrete itself hermeneutical situation .[4] According to Habermas , this difficulty is due to absolutization language and traditions . In order to sue Hegel , Gadamer wants to show the character limitations and history reflection . " Hegel's understanding of the reflections are reduced to the awareness that we bring to an event ( tradition ) which changed the terms of rationality is irrational , according to space and time , epics and culture ."[5]

At first glance, both the debate is no different than the debate between enlightenment to romanticism in the late 18th century and early 19th century .

4.      PSYCHOANALYSIS AND SOCIAL THEORY

In the preface of the book Theory and Practice , Habermas regard this criticism as an opportunity to clarify his own views about the " structuring of political enlightenment ".[6] Although critical theory was developed with the aim to initiate and direct the process of self-reflection and self - emancipation , in itself , this theory does not explain the names that become targets .[7]

Psychoanalysis serves to show an outline of the normative goal of enlightenment , that self - emancipation through self-understanding , efforts to tackle systematically distorted communication , and fertilizing ability for self-determination through rational discourse , while also becoming the standard validity of critical social theory .[8]

5.      SCOPE AND LIMITS OF THEORY FUNGSIONALI

For Habermas ineligibility functionalist social theory in principle can not be solved as long as he is still understood as a form of empirical - analytical research.[9]

According to Habermas , when functionalism serves as a framework for empirical analysis , then he should be converted into a historically oriented theory with a practical purpose , ie, to be a critical social theory[10] . Habermas argues that the attempt to avoid the assumption of structural functional analysis takes place within the framework of the theory of paradoxical expansion of the system .[11]

6.      MATERIALISM HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION

Habermas described the theory of social evolution as a " reconstruction of historical materialism " . Here means the separate reconstruction theory and reunite in a new form , in order to achieve the planned objectives for him .[12] Habermas argues that capitalist society is the anatomy gives important clues about the sides forming social formations before and that he serves as a starting point for the theory of social evolution .[13]

The term " society " Habermas understood as " all the linguistic system coordinated through instrumental and social action in order to process and manage nature - outside in the socialization process .[14] " And one example of the problem is the philosophy or science of Contemporary Society , and analysis of contemporary society contains a practical dimension that can not be avoided anymore . Determination logical development - level contemporary social organization , as well as an explanation for the problems inherent in the existing form of reproduction may be interpreted as an empirical - theoretical task . But since we can not know how developments in the future will lead to regression , self - disintegration or destruction of contemporary society or whether it can all be solved with either the formation of new social and institutional forms that will shape - we just can project future practical , involve ourselves politically , and analyzed in a retrospect of the present prospective open perspective for practice . Thus , for example , analysis of the constellation of power and interests in the present moment includes hypothetico - practical .[15]

ANALYSIS
Train of thought Habermas in the development of the modern theory of rationality is a program of communication . The concept emerged when the scientists began philosophy led to the discovery of a theory without a practice that later gave birth to Habermas 's theory of discourse . Discourse is a form of high reflective communication using rational arguments to reach a consensus without coercion . The other theory is Habermas On the methodology of critical social theory is empirical without reducible to empirical - analytic sciences , first he is philosophical but in the sense of criticism and not in terms of philosophy , and finally , it is historical without being historicist , and practical but not in terms of potential technological mastery but rather in the sense of enlightenment and emancipation orientation . Meanwhile, in the development of hermeneutics , the art of interpreting texts , closely related to theology and jurisprudence . And there are many theories developed by Habermas including : psychoanalysis and social theory , the scope and limits , reconstruction functionalist theory of historical materialism.

CONCLUSION
Habermas's conception of critical theory experienced significant development since the early work ( 1957 ) " literaturbericht zur Diskussion um philosophischen Marx unden marxismus " until the work was written later ( 1976 ) zur rekonstruktion des historischen materialism . Contiguity with analytical philosophy of science led to the renewal of thought, as can be seen in the debate that he did with the pioneering philosophical hermeneutics . The concept of a critical social theory is empirical without reducible to empirical - analytical science , but he is philosophical in the sense of criticism and not in the sense of first philosophy ; Last , it is historical without being historicist , and practical nature , but not in the sense of mastery of the technological potential but rather in the sense of enlightenment and emancipation oriented .

---

[1] Thomas McCarthy, METODOLOGI KRITIS JURGEN HABERMAS, trans. Nurhadi, Cetakan Pertama (Bantul: KREASI WACANA, 2011), 43.

[2] Ibid., 85.

[3] Ibid., 88.

[4] Ibid., 103.

[5] Ibid., 106.

[6] Ibid., 150.

[7] Ibid., 152.

[8] Ibid., 158.

[9] Ibid., 171.

[10] Ibid., 173.

[11] Ibid., 180.

[12] Ibid., 199.

[13] Ibid., 202.

[14] Ibid., 220.

[15] Ibid., 249.

       I.            POSTMODERN (Jean Francois Lyotard)

THEORY

Jean - Francois Lyotard was born in Versailles a small town in the south of Paris in 1924. His book that made his name well known in France and abroad is La condition postmoderne sur le savoir - algebra (1979 ) which contains the answer to the question whether the assumptions underlying politics and science education in informatics society today is still considered inadequate .

The emergence of the postmodern is the logical implications of a shift and the shift since the last three decades of industrial society towards a post- industrial society , and from the modern to the postmodern cultures .[1] Which has influenced the public's understanding over ideological meanings itself has undergone a shift . The objects precisely redefined with the new code , the new aesthetic language , and with new meanings as well . We can observe from the public now is that people have become consumers .

Postmodern in Lyotard in his book The Postmodern Condition : A Report on Knowledge (1984 ) which has been cited by Listiyono Santoso ( 2006:322 ) are the changes in science in advanced industrial societies is due to the influence of new technologies of information technology , the principle of unity ontological basis for the underlying ideas of modern philosophy is not relevant to contemporary realities . The principle of homology ( ontological unity ) it will shift due to the influence of the enormity of the development of information technology . For that principle it should delegitimation by paralogi or pluralist idea .[2] With the goal of keeping power including science , no longer fall on the totalitarian system . Because usually totalitarian and hegemonic status quo , so that the truth should not eradicate the emergence delegitimation truths not just a single truth .

Modernity itself is marked with grands recits ( narrative ) or metarecits ( small narrative ) . Grand narratives or stories of big serves to direct and animate modern society , almost similar to the underlying myths of primitive society first . This big narratives have legitimized institutions and social practices and political , legal and moral systems , and the whole way of thinking . The difference with the myths are great narrative does not seek legitimacy in an event that occurred at the beginning ( such as the creation of the gods ) , but in the future , in an idea to be realized . This idea is universal wherever applicable , one example is the emancipation of the workers through the struggle for socialism . In the field of philosophy , modernity project that culminated in Hegel that totally all the great stories .

Since its inception , the Enlightenment ( Aufklarung ) in the eighteenth century , modernity is understood as a process of developing den spread of Western rationalization to all aspects of human life and social behavior . The basis of modern Western society mindset is rationality – empirical has spawned a number of scientific and technological discovery is amazing, so confirming the rationality of the theological truth . Rationality becomes the sole measure for the correctness of modern Western society . Rationality hailed as the last tool in explaining everything that is considered real or real .

This modern reality may be inspired by Hegel's philosophy , that everything real is rational , and all that is rational is real . Means there is nothing that can not be understood . Cartesian spirit of humanism is also a basis of inspiration in this context . Cartesian modern urge people to see the reality of this world as well as a giant clockwork without a spiritual element involved in motion . Cartesian epistemology adored the subject ' I ' that is ' i am the thinking thing ' , has made a kind of epistemological arrogance that reality can be conquered by defining positively . Cartesian insight here is very mechanistic , in the sense that rationality used as a single measure of ' truth ' and ' machinery ' used as a paradigm , in realizing the utopian dreams of modern humanity and will power .

The hallmark of today is the big narratives were already losing its allure as well as enthusiasts and becoming obsolete . That is the core of the postmodern . Auschwitz ( the symbol for the slaughter of six million Jews by the German national - socialism ) is a special paradigm that signifies the failure of the project of modernity . Quoted from K Bertens ( 2006:386 ) Lyotard considers " the development of science and technology is a means to aggravate the crisis , not decrease ".[3] The growth of science and technology has gone through tremendous human needs . Science and technology , especially in the form of informatics and cybernetics did not evolve as human needs , but according to the " performativity " . That is correct it is what works or what it can do nothing . Can not be said to bring advances in science and technology , which is often called the technological advances that it resulted in a totally , in various forms of totalitarianism , a widening gap between the rich north and the poor south , unemployment , and higher education crisis .

Postmodern is a reconsideration of the symptoms of the crisis due to the application of the model in think rationality of modern Western culture . Quoted from Yasraf Amir Piliang ( 1996:15 ) The only thing that postmodern thinkers become the consensus is that modernity is stated to have lost their critical ability , so that he could no longer find teleological and utopian goals to achieve.[4] Postmodern era has the characteristics of what the truth is too large to be monopolized by one system only and that the diversity of views was more beautiful than unity but uniformity results were obtained even exploit fetter the freedom of man .

Principles developed in postmodern epistemology is parology , especially language approach . Through the method of language games Wittgeinstein , Lyotard describes the phenomenon of contemporary knowledge . Typical analysis of language games is to open the perspective of consciousness in accepting the reality of plural . He believes any actual knowledge moves in language games each, as an example of a game of chess , each piece has a language and measures of its own.[5] Lyotard also pay attention to the work of Immanuel Kant in the third book , titled Criticism over Power Considerations ( 1790 ) . Kant was the last word for heterogeneity : gap between two or more parties are not likely to meet in unity . Just as Lyotard thought that considers the heterogeneity can not be eliminated , always stay a lot " language games " ( language game ) . There are many genres de Discourse : There are many kinds of discourse . Lyotard says that in the discourse that applies certain rules . Politics, ethics , science , economic , juridical field , and the field of aesthetic . All have their own finality . We must realize that we may not just switch from one to the other .[6]

EXAMPLE
The collapse of socialism, komunistis, where a rebellion against the party of Communist laborers happened in Berlin (1953), Budapest (1956), Poland (1980).

ANALYSIS
Seen here how great narratives that underlies and animates the modern era that seeks to legitimize a future in an idea that should be embodied, is universal and applies everywhere in the example above is manifest in the emancipation of the workers through the struggle of socialism that has been followed by many countries, but in the end we can see now it's not lured again and started to be abandoned. Inni thing happens because the project of modernity have been wound up. Instead of giving the progress of human civilization, modernity is thus increasingly plunges man in a State of dehumanization, the barbarians on the situation. A very real example is the ' auschwitz ' which is the symbol for the slaughter of six million Jews by the nationalist-socialism, Germany.

CONCLUSION

It is a Postmodern era in which modernity ends. Where is increasingly evident in a condition how project of modernity's bid to build a paradaban forward with science and technology base thus raises its own problems. Thus the SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY base has been dragged into the abyss of modernity crisis of society that had ruined the value of basic humanity. In this context is not redundant if the promise of modernity to achieve emancipation from poverty, ignorance, prejudice, and lack of flavor amanm no longer considered reasonable. That's the argument that Lyotard menganggab modernity cannot be used anymore to the contemporary.

---

[1] Listiyono Santoso, dkk, EPISTIMOLOGI KIRI (Yogyakarta: Ar-Ruzz, 2006), 320.

[2] Ibid., 322.

[3] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 388.

[4] Listiyono Santoso, dkk, EPISTIMOLOGI KIRI, 330.

[5] Ibid., 333.

[6] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 390–391.

       I.            ONE DIMENTION MAN (Herbert Marcuse)

THEORY
The issue that attracted the attention of Herbert Marcuse and other critical figures in analyzing the theory of modern societies is their attempt to peel the roots of rationality prevailing in modern society . He considers that the rationality of modern society is the main cause of the existence of oppression and enslavement of man by man , the exploitation of man by man , and excessive exploitation of nature . The rationality of industrial society has become ideology and only preserve the established system .

Though the sense of the ratio itself is a cognitive ability to sort between right and wrong throughout truth and error it is a state of Existing ( Being ) and in reality ( Reality ) ( Marcuse , 1964: 123-124 ) . Which eventually shifted meaning , so that in modern times the ratio has stuck solely as a means to achieve goals. Ratios were originally critical of the myth and all autonomous power , has finally been served on the original power and theoretical nature thus be turned into practical technical ratio.[1]

Marcuse does not agree with the way Freud described the relationship between the pleasure principle and the reality principle . Criticisms that Freud decisive relationship between the pleasure principle and the reality principle which applies to the present . Marcuse argued in our day the pleasure principle and the reality principle can be reconciled , even basically the same . The tension between the need on the one hand and on the other hand need satisfaction will disappear thus human happiness would be assured .[2]

1.      Analysis of advanced industrial society

From his book Dimension One man can be concluded that one-dimensional human beings today who is a critical analysis of modern industrial society .

Their thinking is intertwined with Hegelian philosophy and Marxistis atmosphere , for Hegel and Marx also saw philosophy as an attempt to understand the community and the historical period in which they live . This conception of society in Marx along with revolutionary spirit , that desire for philosophical thinking he can contribute to the occurrence of radical changes in society .[3]

2.      Human oppression in the modern industrial society

Principal establishment Marcuse in One Dimension man is that man is a creature by nature crave happiness and well above entitled happiness . Embodiment of happiness is entirely dependent on the satisfaction of actual needs .

Characteristic self-effacing in modern industrial society is the role of science and technology . Rationality in our age of technological rationality . Everything is seen and appreciated as far as controlled , used , manipulated , manipulated and handled .
It should be emphasized that oppression in our time is not the oppression that is done by man to man or group to group . However , there is a totalitarian system that controls all the people . Technological system summarizes the natural and social reality in his hands and no one can influence the system 's anonymity .

Technological system itself arouse human desires that the system can sustain themselves and continue to grow .

In our own day as he pleases man can get what he wants in the field of material , but he only wants what is desired by the system that he wants. In advanced industrial societies as humans caught in a circle , on the one hand to enable greater productivity , the greater the consumption and on the other hand, the only reason for the consumer is to ensure productivity .[4]

3.      Towards a new society

Marcuse keep doing the technical basis on which society will come to reduce the work and satisfy all needs . Science and engineering should not be discarded , but should be changed qualitatively . In addition, given the direction or another purpose , namely the Pacification of existence intention is peace and true freedom .

1)      Here Marcuse provide two ways to fight for a new society , among others :
One should reduce the maximum power ( the reduction of power ) of them political power , economic power , or the concentration of power in a system where people locked up for this .

2)      People should reduce the excessive development ( the reduction of overdevelopment ) .

It was all done to reject false needs that are artificially raised by modern production system and abandon all efforts to further improve the quality of life . To fight for a society that is qualitatively different , people should start by reducing the quantitative .[5]

EXAMPLE
People would prefer eating fried chicken at KFC than eating fried chicken purchased from Mangkang market.

ANALYSIS
Based on the above examples we can analysis that it is rational, because we can see the difference ranging from selling. KFC provided a place so comfortable, air conditioned, where special seating, as well as the logo wall decoration ranging from KFC to place drinking used also did not escape from the KFC logo is branded just special places we could find it.

However, it is not logical, because the price offered at KFC are much more expensive than in Mangkang market. Whereas when compared the quality of taste of fried chicken in the market is no less tasty from Mangkang on at KFC. People are just annoyed ads on TV, making it more prestige eating fried chicken with KFC's logo from the regular fried chicken. Means that more people are not logical, if packed into KFC is not for the main purpose of eating fried chicken, but to buy the prestigious KFC logo.

CONCLUSION

Dimension One man is a parable of modern man is likened to one express their views , namely the technological totalitarian system . All human beings are directed to follow this system . Marcuse did an analysis on this issue and suggested that humans are not affected or even follow it up with the courage to say " no" to anything that is not useful qualitatively .

[1] Listiyono Santoso, dkk, EPISTIMOLOGI KIRI, 105–106.

[2] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 200.

[3] Ibid., 202.

[4] Ibid., 203–204.

[5] Ibid., 211–212.

       I.            TRUTH AND METHODE (Hans Georg Gadamer)

THEORY
The development of the human sciences in the nineteenth century entirely dominated by models of natural sciences .[1]

The problems  is if one reckons the humanities to measure a person's knowledge of the regularity of the mean does not understand precisely the nature of the human sciences .

Gadamer wants to oppose constructively empirical methods to enter the territory of the humanities . To reach the truth in the context of interpretation , a hermeneut must flee from the clutches of the method to later plunge amid the swirl of the dialectic . Because, says Gadamer , employed the method actually hinder or impede the truth , while the relentless dialectic collect fragments of truth until it became " round and intact " .

Nevertheless , Gadamer is not anti - methodological. He argued that any pretension methodology (positivistic or not ) is " blind " if it sees itself as epistemology , which eliminates the requirement of truth ( the true) a requirement that the correct ( right) of an engineering application . Gadamer 's view of his work as an attempt to fulfill the deepest aspirations of the methodology . Under this method , Gadamer wants to explain the basic requirements for the emergence of the truth which is not just a technique of something that is done the subject , but rather as a result of something that happens without our will and something that happens outside our actions .[2]

To that end , Gadamer through a series of theories trying to explain the truth contained in the humanities through a theory of hermeneutic experience consisting of :

1.      Art

The development of the natural sciences led to a change in the assessment of human to other forms of recognition that others , such as aesthetic experience . According to Kant , the art work does not reveal the truth , but only in interpret as mere subjective because it only provides the pleasure of viewing . But Gadamer has other opinions about works of art that the artwork can uncover the truth and make us understand , therefore art including hermeneutics region .[3]

2.      Prejudice

Hermeneutics freed from the concept of scientific objectivity , as it is traditionally understood him based on his character as the art and technique of understanding .[4] Comprehension involves some prejudice that give real direction to the hermeneutic problem . As dictated by Gadamer introduction stating that we can not escape from prejudice . Prejudice counts the space to think , because if avoiding prejudice tantamount to turning off the thought .[5]

Prejudice means a judgment given before all the elements of a situation that ultimately determine the destination . So prejudice is not a false judgment , but it gives an idea of ​​where it has a positive value ( legitimate prejudice ) and negative ( prejudice is not legitimate ) . To achieve a positive value , prejudice must be based on which enlightened reason that both methodological can save us in error . While the negative prejudice caused by excessive rigidity caused by faulty use of reason .[6]

3.      Language
According to Gadamer language is the most difficult part of his philosophy and raises a question mark . Language according to Gadamer actually not express the thought , but as the object itself . Language talk about objects in the world , not a reality subjective.[7]

An understanding of the real truth is not based on " inner acquisition / experience " that has been trodden by others , the intention is to understand or interpret what someone says about the truth then we should not go back to the experiences that have been passed by that person . Instead , we must begin to understand that the language used in presenting the material as a whole . This is because the thought process is understood as a process of explanation with the words , then it becomes clear that a logical achievement can not be fully understood in the sense of composition of objects as they appear on a reason or the experience .[8]

Have a fundamental understanding of the relationship of the language . The understanding is the interpretation of meaning in the text as the contents of objectivity . To interpret the text we have to translate it into our own language .

EXAMPLE

Examples of truth and method on the factory-made cosmetic products of herbal cosmetics products.

ANALYSIS

Can someone define what he saw upon prejudices that done before. As a layman, factory-made cosmetic products must be defined using the material, technical and reliable equipment. Whereas if viewed from the composition is also similar to the herbal cosmetic products. Only the specified composition using scientific names make the belief about the ingredients that are used. The definitions in the theory of Gadamer is referred to as a method. It is a word that is composed in a language based on the subject of prejudice, in which case this is a an herbal cosmetic products. These methods are arranged based on the scientific method (a series of trials/research in real person), making that method is a truth that can be accounted for based on the method of approach hermeneutik.

Therefore, cosmetic products manufacturer is more trusted than herbal cosmetic products because it uses way more reliable method than herbal cosmetic products.

CONCLUSION
Theory of truth revealed by different humanities and natural science . Systematic , science can be verified by scientific methods / empirical data while the theoretical humanities systematically truth can not use the scientific method . However , through a series of art methods , prejudice , and the language of the theory of truth can be proven to deliver real and an interpreter to the definition established interpretation.

Bibliography

Dr. K. Bertens. Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman. Jakarta: Gramedia, 1983.

Hans-Georg Gadamer. Kebenaran dan Metode Pengantar Filsafat Hermeneutika. Translated by AhmadSahidah. Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR, 2004.

James Garvey. 20 Karya Filsafat Terbesar. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Kanisius, 2014.

Karl Raimund Popper. LOGIKA PENEMUAN ILMIAH. Translated by Saut pasaribu and Aji Sastrowardoyo. Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR, 2008.

Listiyono Santoso, dkk. EPISTIMOLOGI KIRI. Yogyakarta: Ar-Ruzz, 2006.

Thomas McCarthy. METODOLOGI KRITIS JURGEN HABERMAS. Translated by Nurhadi. Cetakan Pertama. Bantul: KREASI WACANA, 2011.

Thomas S. Khun. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions PERAN PARADIGMA DALAM REVOLUSI SAINS. Translated by Tjun Surjana. Bandung: PT REMAJA ROSDAKARYA, 2000.

---

[1] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Kebenaran dan Metode Pengantar Filsafat Hermeneutika, trans. AhmadSahidah (Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR, 2004), 3.

[2] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method.

[3] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 225.

[4] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 321.

[5] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 230.

[6] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 327.

[7] Dr. K. Bertens, Filsafat Barat Abad XX Inggris-Jerman, 232.

[8] Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, 465.