Philosophy Of Science

[Politesse]

If theree is no difference between philosophy and sconce, can you elaborate on what you mean by science and philosophy?

No one has or would say that. Science is derived from philosophy, they aren't synonyms. And a great many such definitions have been provided to you in this thread, you just ignore them all.

Do I use philosophy or science to build a bridge or a particle accelerator?

Neither, necessarily. But you'll need both if you wish to invent either of those things.

To me philosophy is easy.

That is VERY true, but it says more about you as a person, than about the potential of philosophy.

Anyone can create a philosophy. There is no right or wrong to a specific philosophy.

Deeply incorrect. If you cannot make a rational, organized argument for your way of thinking, it is by definition not a philosophy.

Multiple philosophies of science, and ethics if you go outside of western philosophy. Which one is correct?

A good question for philosophers to discuss. It is likely that all of them have at least some merit, and indeed a great many analogues. As one would expect if philosophy is a worthwhile practice.

The Stoics believed suicide was a way out of an untenable situation.

I am baffled as to how this could be considered relevant to the conversation except that:

There is no general consequences to a philosophy.

Then you follow it up with this even more baffling claim! How can philosophy be without consequence, and also a key factor in whether or not someone ends their own life!? You are badly in need of philosophical study, my friend, if you cannot keep up a logical argument even from one sentence to the next.

There are consequences to a physical theory being wrong. It has to be proven right.

Ironically "proving things right" is never the goal of the educated scientist, but it is a fairly common exercise for a philosopher.

 

[pood]

If theree is no difference between philosophy and sconce, can you elaborate on what you mean by science and philosophy?

Do I use philosophy or science to build a bridge or a particle accelerator?

To me philosophy is easy. Anyone can create a philosophy. There is no right or wrong to a specific philosophy. Multiple philosophies of science, and ethics if you go outside of western philosophy. Which one is correct?

The Stoics believed suicide was a way out of an untenable situation.

There is no general consequences to a philosophy.

There are consequences to a physical theory being wrong. It has to be proven right.

I’ve already gone over all this with multiple supporting examples.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Two of the most remarkable insights in scientific history were from philosophical thought experiments. I guess engineer Steve finds them … dopey,

Would you consider Kepler's thinking that orbits may be elliptical instead of circular to be a philosophical thought experiment? Just wondering so I can contextualize your comments a bit better within the history of science and compare to Einstein's thought experiments.

Kepler discovered ellipses empirically.

Hume supported radical empiricism — a philosophical stance.

The Copernican system had the same problem as the Ptolemaic system — the assumption that orbits ere perfectly circular. This was a mistaken philosophical assumption. I once read an account of the difference between Ptolemy and Copernicus was that the former fell afoul of the principal of parsimony, but in fact it seems that was not true vis a vis Copernicus, whose account actually required more epicycles than Ptolemy’s did.

Kepler was trying to fit data with circles, which you state was a "philosophical assumption". So, I want to know if you consider Kepler's thought that orbits could be ellipses to be a "philosophical thought experiment" along the lines of Einstein's. He considered something that wasn't the common paradigm at the time and then made quantitative predictions based on that thinking that ultimately fit the data better.

Kepler derived ellipses empirically from carefully studying the orbit of Mars in particular. He was trying to fit the orbit into a circular paradigm but found that he could not, so ellipses were not a philosophical assumption on his part.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying your position on this.

 

[steve_bank]

Pood

When you say individual A who is labeled a philosopher influenced individual B labeled a scientist in his theory I have no problem.

When you jump to saying therefore something called philosophy(witho0ut definition) has a general agency in guiding science I have a problem.

Do you see the difference?

Whether you realize it or not you are using an inductive argument. Going from a specific case to a general conclusion.

Creative invention and problem solving be it a theory of cosmology or the theory of feedback control or a theory in economics are the same creative human processes.

When I started out I thought as an engineer I was at the top of the food chain. After a while I realized problem solving is the same reasoning process regardless of the area.

In engineering taking empirical data and observation then creating a predicative model or theory is routine. Noting out of the ordinary.

There is no unique process to scientific invention. No philosophy is required.

 

[pood]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying your position on this.

Kepler’s metaphysical assumption was circular. He abandoned the idea via empiricism, a philosophical stance advanced by Hume. Everything is philosophy in the end.

 

[Swammerdami]

The very word "philosopher" comes from Greek "lover of wisdom" or "lover of learning." For centuries the greatest scientists regarded themselves as philosophers.

It was Carl Friedrich Gauss himself who called mathematics the "Queen of Sciences" and mathematics is intimately tied to philosophy.

Wiktionary's definition of philosophy -- "An academic discipline that seeks truth through reasoning rather than empiricism, often attempting to provide explanations relating to general concepts such as existence and rationality" -- reminds me of a famous quote linking the science of physics to the "Queen of Sciences" by one of the greatest scientists of all:

Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed.

Another famous quote about philosophy comes from a man sometimes considered the greatest logician of all time:

Every good mathematician is at least half a philosopher, and every good philosopher is at least half a mathematician.

 

[pood]

Let’s look at the case of Kepler more closely.

He assumed circularity. Empirical evidence dissuaded him.

What if he had had access to Duhem/Quine? Check your auxiliary hypotheses?

What if Newton had had access to the same?

But again, empiricism itself is a philosophical stance. Could empiricism be false, or limited?

 

[pood]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying your position on this.

Kepler’s metaphysical assumption was circular. He abandoned the idea via empiricism, a philosophical stance advanced by Hume. Everything is philosophy in the end.

By circular, I mean orbits, not reasoning.

 

[bilby]

Any species of animal that has a sufficiently complex CNS, is able to observe and experience its environment and learn how to interact with it. That is not philosophy.

Science just does it systematically. Making observations, gathering and testing information, which is not philosophy, but science.

Science is the reasoned decision to do it systematically, which is not a scientific decision, but a philosophical one.

 

[pood]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying your position on this.

Kepler’s metaphysical assumption was circular. He abandoned the idea via empiricism, a philosophical stance advanced by Hume. Everything is philosophy in the end.

By circular, I mean orbits, not reasoning.

Wait a sec.

To assume circular orbits is … circular.

 

[pood]

Science: Newton’s “law” of gravity.

Philosophy: Newton writing in a letter, but what IS gravity? How can there be a “force” that reaches across long distances?

Philosophy: Duhem-Quine. Newton, you assume absolute space and time and Euclidean geometry. Check your assumptions.

Science/Philosophy/Newton: But such is self-evident!

Philosophy: Is it?

And so on. Science and philosophy in everlasting dialogue.

 

[DBT]

Empiricism in science is of course a philosophical stance deriving largely from Hume.

Is empiricism not related to the facts of the natural world? I would that say it is, that at some point science became separated from philosophy.

 

[pood]

Empiricism in science is of course a philosophical stance deriving largely from Hume.

Is empiricism not related to the facts of the natural world? I would say it is.

Of course, but it is buttressed by philosophy as notably articulated by Hume.

 

[pood]

Pood

When you say individual A who is labeled a philosopher influenced individual B labeled a scientist in his theory I have no problem.

OK.

When you jump to saying therefore something called philosophy(witho0ut definition) has a general agency in guiding science I have a problem.

Two things: Both philosophy and science have a demarcation problem, in trying to assign rigorous definitions. And I did not say that philosophy has a GENERAL agency in guiding science, though that claim, while perhaps extreme, might actually be true.

Do you see the difference?

Whether you realize it or not you are using an inductive argument. Going from a specific case to a general conclusion.

Sure. So? Induction itself is a philosophical idea, and see Hume’s (philosophical) problem with it.

Creative invention and problem solving be it a theory of cosmology or the theory of feedback control or a theory in economics are the same creative human processes.

I agree.

When I started out I thought as an engineer I was at the top of the food chain. After a while I realized problem solving is the same reasoning process regardless of the area.

In engineering taking empirical data and observation then creating a predicative model or theory is routine. Noting out of the ordinary.

There is no unique process to scientific invention. No philosophy is required.

You are right, there is no such unique process. For more elaboration, see Feyerabend (philosopher).

 

[DBT]

Empiricism in science is of course a philosophical stance deriving largely from Hume.

Is empiricism not related to the facts of the natural world? I would say it is.

Of course, but it is buttressed by philosophy as notably articulated by Hume.

At what point do you say that philosophy comes into the picture?

Observation does not appear to be a matter of philosophy.

Gathering information does not appear to be philosophy.

Experimentation and testing of information does look like philosophical inquiry.

Forming hypothesis or theory? It also looks doubtful because that is just a matter of tying the evidence together.

So at what point does science become a matter of philosophy?

 

[bilby]

At what point do you say that philosophy comes into the picture?

Observation does not appear to be a matter of philosophy.

Gathering information does not appear to be philosophy.

Experimentation and testing of information does look like philosophical inquiry.

Forming hypothesis or theory? It also looks doubtful because that is just a matter of tying the evidence together.

So at what point does science become a matter of philosophy?

You can't see the wood for the trees.

How do you determine that these are the steps you should follow?

How, for example, did you decide that "Experimentation and testing" was a better option than "Prayer and quiet contemplation"?

What made you think that "Gathering information" was preferable to "taking psychoactive drugs"?

The answer begins with a 'P'.

 

[Shadowy Man]

At what point do you say that philosophy comes into the picture?

Observation does not appear to be a matter of philosophy.

Gathering information does not appear to be philosophy.

Experimentation and testing of information does look like philosophical inquiry.

Forming hypothesis or theory? It also looks doubtful because that is just a matter of tying the evidence together.

So at what point does science become a matter of philosophy?

You can't see the wood for the trees.

How do you determine that these are the steps you should follow?

How, for example, did you decide that "Experimentation and testing" was a better option than "Prayer and quiet contemplation"?

What made you think that "Gathering information" was preferable to "taking psychoactive drugs"?

The answer begins with a 'P'.

Predictability, accurate?

 

[DBT]

At what point do you say that philosophy comes into the picture?

Observation does not appear to be a matter of philosophy.

Gathering information does not appear to be philosophy.

Experimentation and testing of information does look like philosophical inquiry.

Forming hypothesis or theory? It also looks doubtful because that is just a matter of tying the evidence together.

So at what point does science become a matter of philosophy?

You can't see the wood for the trees.

How do you determine that these are the steps you should follow?

How, for example, did you decide that "Experimentation and testing" was a better option than "Prayer and quiet contemplation"?

What made you think that "Gathering information" was preferable to "taking psychoactive drugs"?

The answer begins with a 'P'.

'P' as in Predictability? Results? Satellites, Landers on the moon, Venus, Mars, Titan, World Wide Web, etc, etc.......which is not the work of philosophy, but science. Hence the distinction.

 

[No Robots]

Verification (eg. by predictibility) is what validates a theory. The theory is prior.

 

[DBT]

Verification (eg. by predictibility) is what validates a theory. The theory is prior.

There is something that comes prior to theory.