Science And Philosophy

[steve_bank]

Some use the word philosophy as a monolithic entity which spawned science as an act of conscious creation.

To me philosophy is a broad generalization covering the development of human thought. To say philosophy created or owns science makes no sense to me. A distinction between philosophy and science is one of arbitrary categories.

In the past I have heard said I philosophize therefore I do science because science and philosophy equate.

The way I see it is that in the face of growing empirical science and mathematical modeling, Natural Philosophy using metaphysics as a way to understand reality was no longer sufficient.

 

[none]

you might be interested in Feyerabrand... the enemy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

 

[braces_for_impact]

I often hear from philosophers that science is merely a branch of philosophy and that they cannot be so easily separated. Many scientists look upon philosophy as "soft" and something that hasn't shown any progress in modern times. Perhaps, keeping in mind the fallacy of middle ground, the truth is actually somewhere in between.

 

[steve_bank]

I often hear from philosophers that science is merely a branch of philosophy and that they cannot be so easily separated. Many scientists look upon philosophy as "soft" and something that hasn't shown any progress in modern times. Perhaps, keeping in mind the fallacy of middle ground, the truth is actually somewhere in between.

The word philosophy means love or serach for wisdom and knowledge. Philosophy does not act on anything or own anything.

If somebody says they are a philosopher I'd ask what discipline or area of interest.

I agree you can not separate the two as each are arbitrary categories, that is how I see it. As an engineer and applied scientist, what goes into an individual is a mix and blend of things. Aristotle can be considered the starting point of formal sconce as we have it today. He was a mix of somewhat objective reasoning and fanciful speculation. I believe he was an animist, spirits in objects.Philosophy, science, or whatever it is all the same brain and same reasoning faculties.

 

[steve_bank]

you might be interested in Feyerabrand... the enemy of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

'...In his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress..;'

I think he is spot on. That is my experience. There are theories, and laws in science but there are no rules on how to derive them and apply them. If our faculties were rule based we would not have science. I doubt our brains work on rules and linear Aristotelian logic.

There was a series of scifi books based on 'Null A' for non Aristotelian thinking.

 

[untermensche]

To me philosophy is a broad generalization covering the development of human thought.

That is both philosophy and science.

Philosophy is what keeps science on the right track.

Sometimes.

 

[steve_bank]

To me philosophy is a broad generalization covering the development of human thought.

That is both philosophy and science.

Philosophy is what keeps science on the right track.

Sometimes.

You refer to philosophy like a Catholic refers to the Pope.

Philosohy is not monolithic, neither is sceince.Academic theortical science is only a small part of science. Philosophy does not enact anything.

Define what you mean exactly by the word philosophy when you say philosophy keeps science on track. Is that Nihilism, Exestentialim, ???? Where would science be without Nieche? You do not seem to have much depth to me. Lets see some hard core philisophical logic and reasoning to support your hypothesis.

Go ahead, make my day....

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some use the word philosophy as a monolithic entity which spawned science as an act of conscious creation.

Provide quotes or desist.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I often hear from philosophers that science is merely a branch of philosophy and that they cannot be so easily separated. Many scientists look upon philosophy as "soft" and something that hasn't shown any progress in modern times. Perhaps, keeping in mind the fallacy of middle ground, the truth is actually somewhere in between.

Still, it is an empirical fact that philosophy made some real progress over the last few centuries and it's been recognised by most unbiased people.

This progress has even been given a name.

Show

It's been called "science".

EB

 

[ruby sparks]

I often hear from philosophers that science is merely a branch of philosophy and that they cannot be so easily separated. Many scientists look upon philosophy as "soft" and something that hasn't shown any progress in modern times. Perhaps, keeping in mind the fallacy of middle ground, the truth is actually somewhere in between.

I'm with speakpigeon on this and I'm part of the 'science is philosophy' brigade. In particular, science, or much of it at least, is 'applied philosophy' as I see it. I have heard it said that as soon as some philosophical branch or sub-branch becomes subject to empirical testing, it cleaves off from philosophy into one of the sciences (applied philosophies). Others might say that if philosophy makes measurable progress, something similar happens. Those are both probably too simplistic, I accept that.

But in general terms, what most people think of as 'philosophy' is to some extent, well I'm not going to say the leftovers, because I could equally say the tricky stuff (like for example morality).

In any event, science often involves 'unapplied philosophy' too, and 'unapplied' philosophy can involve testing, so I don't think they can be split into separate endeavours.

And then there's continental philosophy, which arguably doesn't even want to be scientific or empirical and is fairly happy to veer in another direction.

 

[steve_bank]

It is like watching people who have never played baseball arguing pitching.

My views come from experience with science , not quoting other people.

Still have no idea what people mean when they say philosophy without any qualifiers. At the end of the day in science what matters is accomplishment that is tangible, not metaphysics. It matters not what philosophy you hold to.

 

[untermensche]

To me philosophy is a broad generalization covering the development of human thought.

That is both philosophy and science.

Philosophy is what keeps science on the right track.

Sometimes.

You refer to philosophy like a Catholic refers to the Pope.

By saying a part of it has an important use?

Philosohy is not monolithic, neither is sceince.Academic theortical science is only a small part of science. Philosophy does not enact anything.

In science the world just provides the data.

All the conclusions have to come from minds.

And minds are fallible.

That is where philosophy can be helpful.

To help separate the good from bad conclusions scientists make about the data.

Define what you mean exactly by the word philosophy when you say philosophy keeps science on track.

Philosophy examines ideas like science examines the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Endless tit for tat furthers nothing. I think I am done with thus thread.

 

[Poppa Popobawa]

Endless tit for tat furthers nothing. I think I am done with thus thread.

I am in agreement with untermensche. The above quote is a case of philosophy in action: "Endless tit for tat is equated to furthers nothing". The action is to cease endless titting and tatting, and be done with the thread.

Similarly in science, philosophy answers: What is good science ? What is bad science ? What is good evidence ? What is poor evidence ? What qualifies as a valid theory ? What fails, even as an hypothesis ? What approaches, methods, analyses and conclusions further science, and which ones do not ?

All of this and more is philosophy, and if it is not examined, decided and applied, can lead to non-science or pseudo-science. People apply their philosophy, whether they know it or not. Even to say: "I don't care how I conduct or interpret science" would be a philosophy, which would be put into action, if truly held as a position. And if one conducted 'supposed science' not caring about the philosophy, and even without giving it a thought, would amount to putting such a philosophy into action, even if not as a thought out and opted for philosophical position. It'd be easily open to pretty shonky science if done that way, would be rejected by the scientific community, who hold to another philosophy - a philosophy which says that you must think upon these questions, come to a decision, and apply that.

 

[steve_bank]

Endless tit for tat furthers nothing. I think I am done with thus thread.

I am in agreement with untermensche. The above quote is a case of philosophy in action: "Endless tit for tat is equated to furthers nothing". The action is to cease endless titting and tatting, and be done with the thread.

Similarly in science, philosophy answers: What is good science ? What is bad science ? What is good evidence ? What is poor evidence ? What qualifies as a valid theory ? What fails, even as an hypothesis ? What approaches, methods, analyses and conclusions further science, and which ones do not ?

All of this and more is philosophy, and if it is not examined, decided and applied, can lead to non-science or pseudo-science. People apply their philosophy, whether they know it or not. Even to say: "I don't care how I conduct or interpret science" would be a philosophy, which would be put into action, if truly held as a position. And if one conducted 'supposed science' not caring about the philosophy, and even without giving it a thought, would amount to putting such a philosophy into action, even if not as a thought out and opted for philosophical position. It'd be easily open to pretty shonky science if done that way, would be rejected by the scientific community, who hold to another philosophy - a philosophy which says that you must think upon these questions, come to a decision, and apply that.

Through a competitive social process what makes good science is determined.

From your post I'd suggest you read Popper's Objective Knowledge. His view of how science becomes accepted as truth matches my experience.t is not reducible to a specific philosophy or philosophies. I agree with his view that the only thing we can call objective knowledge is an experiment. His term for that position is experimentalist. As discussion expands around the experiment it becomes less and less objective and tails off into philosophy.

Science becomes a collective truth over time.

To Popper to be science it must be testable. String Theory was thought by some to be philosophy because there was no conceivable way to test it.

Metaphysics not tied to physical reality are systems of thought abstractions. Metaphysics tied to unambiguous physical reference points is science, the reference points being the kilogram, meter, and second in Systems International.

Philosophy as some nebulous definition did not invent thinking or thoughts, which came first the thinker or the thought? The term science as well as philosophy is ill defined. Both are generalizations.

I derive my life philosophy from the great American philosopher Pop Eye Sailor who said, 'I ams what I ams'.

Welcome to the Aussie.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Some use the word philosophy as a monolithic entity which spawned science as an act of conscious creation.

To me philosophy is a broad generalization covering the development of human thought. To say philosophy created or owns science makes no sense to me. A distinction between philosophy and science is one of arbitrary categories.

In the past I have heard said I philosophize therefore I do science because science and philosophy equate.

The way I see it is that in the face of growing empirical science and mathematical modeling, Natural Philosophy using metaphysics as a way to understand reality was no longer sufficient.

Even if we take the word "philosophy" in a narrow sense, that of something done by full-time philosophers, it's a historical fact that science in Europe developed in a context where philosophy had become hegemonic in the intellectual class. I think it's probably impossible to decide whether modern science could have developed outside of that kind of context. Hence, it's just reasonable to assume, and many reasonable people did just that, that science issued from philosophy, in the sense indicated here.

A few people will want to nitpick that strictly speaking that can't be true simply because they take philosophy to be the kind of thing that's causally ineffective. If so, then science, too, is causally ineffective, end of the discussion.

If we take philosophy in a broad sense, i.e. something we all have to do to some extent, then obviously all scientists do it, too, and it also becomes reasonable to assume that the philosophical ideas that all scientists will have before starting to do any science cannot possibly fail to influence what science they do and how they do it.

And there's obviously a loose continuum between these two basic modes of doing philosophy.

What's left to disagree about? Oh, yes! The bizarre idea that philosophy is a "monolithic entity which spawned science as an act of conscious creation".

As I already said, provide quotes or desist.
EB