There is a very thin line between metaphysics, philosofy and religion
Metaphysics is a science
Edit by Rvec: This topic was part of Speed of thought ?!, but because it was too far off-topic (and I got an angry pm 
) I split it. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
There is a very thin line between metaphysics, philosofy and religion
Metaphysics is a science |
Is that so?
Indulge me. Go to google.com, and type "define: metaphysics" in the search bar, without the quotes. Share what you find with the rest of the class.
You might also want to try dictionary.com. And, you're free to pick your own source, if you like.Google, Dictionary and all other sources in the internet are not the authority on any particular subject
I am a scientist by profession please have a look at my page
If I start working and quoting google in my scientific papers I will be laughed at
In fact my dear friend
Philosophy itself is a science
Quote from the journal
Theoria vol. 69, Part 3 (2003)
you can access this at
http://www.infra.kth.se/phil/theoria/editorial693.htm
Heres to you
According to one view, philosophical treatments of a subject are, at least in typical cases, an early phase in the scientific study of that subject. Philosophy is then regarded as a form of protoscience, out of which science can be developed. One of the many proponents of that view was William James
Reference : William James, Some problems of philosophy: a beginning of an introduction to philosophy, New York, Longmans, 1911.
The second view treats philosophy in toto as one of the disciplines of science. This viewpoint is represented by CJ Ducasse, who identified philosophy as the science whose subject-matter consists of “spontaneous particular appraisals – and whatever turns out to be implicit in them”.
Reference : C J Ducasse, Philosophy as a science. Its matter and its method. Oskar Piest, New York 1941.
The third standpoint considers some but not all forms of philosophy as a science. One of the most outspoken proponents of this view was Hans Reichenbach. He distinguished between “speculative” and “scientific” philosophy, also called “old” and “new” philosophy. Contrary to speculative philosophy, scientific philosophy “leaves the explanation of the universe entirely to the scientist; it constructs the theory of knowledge by the analysis of the results of science and is aware of the fact that neither the physics of the universe nor that of the atom can be understood in terms of concepts derived from everyday life.”
Reference: Hans Reichenbach The Rise of Scientific Philosophy University of California Press, Berkeley 1954.
In the middle of all this chatter about what is a science, I wonder about philosophy. Certainly, over the route of my occupation, I've been astounded to observe how the for the most part nonrepresentationally metaphysical themes originally conversed by philosophers include to impact an assortment of clearly experimental disciplines exterior philosophy. Effort by philosophers on the metaphysics of modality (or the semantics for modal languages) resulted in a model that has useful applicability in a wide variety of topics (e.g. the study of probability, the study of natural language meaning). Philosophers nurse the conception of causation while it was hiding from anti-metaphysical services, and now it is a highly regarded theme again in the individual sciences (e.g. no discussion of practical reasoning can ignore it). Psychologists interested in concept configuration appeal to work in metaphysics as abstract Some of us are still fairly open about the statement that we do experiments. I wonder how to make a distinction between philosophy and 'real' science.
Check all these references
When I argue that Philosophy is itself a science you can say that metaphysics which according to you is philosophy is also a science
Please have a look at theses reference
1. Experimentalmetaphysics2: The double standard in the quantum-information approach to the foundations of quantum theory
Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, Volume 38, Issue 4, December 2007, Pages 906-919
Amit Hagar
2. Science, truth and history, part II. Metaphysical bolt-holes for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge?
Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, Volume 38, Issue 1, March 2007, Pages 185-209
Nick Tosh
3. The evolution and limits of science
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 30, Issue 1, October 2006, Pages 51-55
Daham Ismail Alani and Zina Alani Mougharbel
4. http://www.gwfhegel.org/
Metaphysics is not the branch of philosophy that explains physical phenomena using reason and logic in a way that falls outside the bounds of either religion or science' rather it is a philosophical science which deals with transcendental concepts such as being, one, true and good which in its simplest form is 'being as such'. What really makes Metaphysics hard to define is its object: being. Being cannot be defined properly but only descriptively. According to ELIZABETH A. RAUSCHER AND RUSSELL TARG
Bay Research Institute
1010 Harriet Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
e-mail: radiant@pacbell.net in an article entittled
"The Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time
Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomena"
published in
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 331–354, 2001
The speed of thought is undefined in meters per second. Since consciousness can access the complex eight space as though it is contiguous, space-time distances are non-existent for mind-to mind,
or mind-to-target awareness—separation of consciousness is an illusion.
The compelling data for precognition make it appear that the future is unalterably
determined. This fatalist point of view maintains that our awareness
moves inexorably along the time line at a rate of one second per second. But,
this seeming limitation of our free will is only a four-space perception. We believe
that the higher dimensional space described here gives additional degrees
of freedom, which are available to our awareness, allowing us to have greater
access to possible futures. | Quote: |
| Philosophy itself is a science |
As a science degree student I can safely say that this is not the case.
Like Indi stated, the scientific and natural answer to your question is 'c. 100mph'. Areas of study don't get to define themselves as science, they need peer acceptance from other scientists and that is something armchair philosophers don't have. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I am a scientist by profession please have a look at my page
...
I wonder how to make a distinction between philosophy and 'real' science. |
How can you seriously be a practising scientist and not know what a "real" science is? -_- That's like being an orchestral violinist and not knowing what a score is.
Despite your meandering and nebulous claims (most of which are based on poor comprehension, but we'll get to that in a minute), science is quite well defined, and is very clear about what is and what is not a science, and why. The problem is that we use the word "science" colloquially to mean a number of different things, many of which are not science.
Take "Creation Science" for example. To the untrained eye, it looks a lot like science - even more so than philosophy does. It has "theories", it has data, it has experiments, it has experts, it has journals... sure seems to have everything that a science should have. But is it really science? No, it's not. Why not? Because it uses religion? No. Because "real" scientists denounce it? No. The reason "creation science" is not really science is because it does not satisfy the requirements necessary to be a science.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Google, Dictionary and all other sources in the internet are not the authority on any particular subject
...
If I start working and quoting google in my scientific papers I will be laughed at |
No, but they are a good place to start your research before making spurious claims. You have far more chance of being laughed at if you make ridiculous claims that could have easily been shown wrong by a ten second Google search, such as in this case.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
In fact my dear friend
Philosophy itself is a science
Quote from the journal
Theoria vol. 69, Part 3 (2003)
you can access this at
http://www.infra.kth.se/phil/theoria/editorial693.htm
Heres to you
According to one view, philosophical treatments of a subject are, at least in typical cases, an early phase in the scientific study of that subject. Philosophy is then regarded as a form of protoscience, out of which science can be developed. One of the many proponents of that view was William James
Reference : William James, Some problems of philosophy: a beginning of an introduction to philosophy, New York, Longmans, 1911. |
Now, a modicum of common sense is required when collecting journal evidence to support a claim. First, you want to pick a journal that actually knows what they are talking about. If you want to determine whether X is a science, you don't ask the X experts, you ask the science experts. For example, if you want to know whether steel processing is considered a first or second tier industry, you don't talk to an expert in steel processing, you talk to an expert in industrial classification. They know what makes something first or second tier, not the steel processing people, and they can check the steel processing industry to determine what category it fits and why. So if you want to know whether philosophy meets the standards of science, you should really check a science journal, not a philosophy journal.
And, once again, using a two second Google search, i find: Theoria: A Swedish Journal of Philosophy
Hm, not a great start, but not enough to rule out the possibility that maybe an expert in science was writing in a philosophy journal. Of course, that takes another two second check, this time in Wikipedia (which i'd guess you also consider beneath you to use as a source). Sven Ove Hansson appears to be an expert in theoretical philosophy.
Not looking good, but hey, maybe he has a good argument in his article. Even if it's not his field, a good argument is a good argument, right?
And here is where we run into the biggest problem in your methodology. You have failed to understand what you read.
Here is what Hansson says (as quoted by you): "{P}hilosophical treatments of a subject are... an early phase in the scientific study of that subject. Philosophy is then regarded as a form of protoscience, out of which science can be developed." (Incidently, for shits and giggles, i should mention that the source of his argument, William James, is also a philosopher... not a scientist.)
Somehow you managed to read "philosophy is an early stage of science" as "philosophy is science". Clearly that's just bad comprehension.
And reading through Hansson's editorial, it becomes clear that he does not agree with you. He says that philosophy leads to science, and science feeds philosophy (as he says: "Being a member of this community of disciplines is a matter of both giving and taking. As philosophers we have to respect the knowledge obtained in other disciplines, but we can also expect knowledge workers in other disciplines to respect achievements made by philosophers. Hence, philosophers should refrain from attempts to solve problems in physics with “purely conceptual” methods that ignore results from experimental physics.[5] Similarly, physicists should refrain from trying to solve epistemological problems without making proper use of concepts and methods that have been developed by philosophers specializing in epistemology."). At no point anywhere in his editorial does he say that philosophy is science. In fact, in the bit that i quoted, he explicitly says it's not.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
The second view treats philosophy in toto as one of the disciplines of science. This viewpoint is represented by CJ Ducasse, who identified philosophy as the science whose subject-matter consists of “spontaneous particular appraisals – and whatever turns out to be implicit in them”.
Reference : C J Ducasse, Philosophy as a science. Its matter and its method. Oskar Piest, New York 1941. |
Without a copy of the source, i can't comment on its content.
i can, however, comment on its author, Curt John Ducasse.
| Ducasse's biography wrote: |
| Ducasse was interested in and wrote about all sorts of paranormal phenomena. He thought that the idea of reincarnation made sense, stating that, given the genius and the boob, the beautiful and the ugly, it would be a manifestation of justice in the universe. He said that the study of the paranormal “broadened my horizon of the potentialities of human nature and of the universe. So many people are hemmed in by tacit beliefs and disbeliefs, by conformities and the things they take for granted, that they shut their eyes to the fact that the material world is not the whole of this world and that there are apparently dimensions of nature as yet unknown and unexplored. ... I face the prospect of dying as an interesting adventure, as a sort of laboratory experiment.” |
Ya... he sure sounds like an authority on what is and what is not science. ^_^;
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
The third standpoint considers some but not all forms of philosophy as a science. One of the most outspoken proponents of this view was Hans Reichenbach. He distinguished between “speculative” and “scientific” philosophy, also called “old” and “new” philosophy. Contrary to speculative philosophy, scientific philosophy “leaves the explanation of the universe entirely to the scientist; it constructs the theory of knowledge by the analysis of the results of science and is aware of the fact that neither the physics of the universe nor that of the atom can be understood in terms of concepts derived from everyday life.”
Reference: Hans Reichenbach The Rise of Scientific Philosophy University of California Press, Berkeley 1954. |
Again, without access to the source, i have only what's in front of me. And what i see is a bad case of poor comprehension again. What i read there does not say philosophy is a science. It says that Reichenbach tried to found a new branch of philosophy that he called "scientific philosophy" that uses science as a source for philosophizing.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| In the middle of all this chatter about what is a science, I wonder about philosophy. Certainly, over the route of my occupation, I've been astounded to observe how the for the most part nonrepresentationally metaphysical themes originally conversed by philosophers include to impact an assortment of clearly experimental disciplines exterior philosophy. Effort by philosophers on the metaphysics of modality (or the semantics for modal languages) resulted in a model that has useful applicability in a wide variety of topics (e.g. the study of probability, the study of natural language meaning). Philosophers nurse the conception of causation while it was hiding from anti-metaphysical services, and now it is a highly regarded theme again in the individual sciences (e.g. no discussion of practical reasoning can ignore it). Psychologists interested in concept configuration appeal to work in metaphysics as abstract Some of us are still fairly open about the statement that we do experiments. I wonder how to make a distinction between philosophy and 'real' science. |
"I wonder how to make a distinction between philosophy and 'real' science." Simple. By looking at the definition of what is a "real" science, which is precisely defined, and seeing what fits and what doesn't.
All of the cases you describe above demonstrate that philosophers learn from scientists and scientists learn from philosophers. So what? No one denies that both fields do benefit from each other. That doesn't make them the same thing.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| When I argue that Philosophy is itself a science you can say that metaphysics which according to you is philosophy is also a science |
i do not say metaphysics is philosophy. Metaphysicists do.
Since you look down on simple dictionary definitions and Google search results and prefer scholarly journals as references, i offer this: Metaphysica: a journal on metaphysics. Read the single paragraph on that page, and count the number of occurences of science, scientific, scientists etc. Then count the number of occurences of philosophy, philosopher, philosophical, etc. Share your results with the rest of us.
Oh, but of course, a single reference is not enough. So do the same for this journal: Review of Metaphysics.
Or, you can start from a resource list, like here.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Metaphysics is not the branch of philosophy that explains physical phenomena using reason and logic in a way that falls outside the bounds of either religion or science' rather it is a philosophical science which deals with transcendental concepts such as being, one, true and good which in its simplest form is 'being as such'. What really makes Metaphysics hard to define is its object: being. Being cannot be defined properly but only descriptively. |
Which is yet another reason why metaphysics fails the science litmus test.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
According to ELIZABETH A. RAUSCHER AND RUSSELL TARG
Bay Research Institute
1010 Harriet Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
e-mail: radiant@pacbell.net in an article entittled
"The Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time
Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomena"
published in
Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 331–354, 2001
The speed of thought is undefined in meters per second. Since consciousness can access the complex eight space as though it is contiguous, space-time distances are non-existent for mind-to mind,
or mind-to-target awareness—separation of consciousness is an illusion.
The compelling data for precognition make it appear that the future is unalterably
determined. This fatalist point of view maintains that our awareness
moves inexorably along the time line at a rate of one second per second. But,
this seeming limitation of our free will is only a four-space perception. We believe
that the higher dimensional space described here gives additional degrees
of freedom, which are available to our awareness, allowing us to have greater
access to possible futures. |
^_^;
Dude, seriously... if you really want to be taken seriously as a scientist, take a little more care with what articles you use as sources. Let me highlight the problem above:
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
According to ELIZABETH A. RAUSCHER AND RUSSELL TARG
Bay Research Institute
1010 Harriet Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
e-mail: radiant@pacbell.net in an article entittled
"The Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time
Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomena"
... |
^_^;
i recommend that you go back to basics and find out what science really is. This is a very good place to start. When reading that, try to figure how metaphysics can possibly satisfy the criteria described there.
| simplyw00x wrote: |
| Quote: | | Philosophy itself is a science |
As a science degree student I can safely say that this is not the case.
Like Indi stated, the scientific and natural answer to your question is 'c. 100mph'. Areas of study don't get to define themselves as science, they need peer acceptance from other scientists and that is something armchair philosophers don't have. |
i have to disagree with you, partly.
Peer acceptance is neither necessary nor sufficient to make something a science. There is lots of peer support for things like "Intelligent Design" and other pseudo-scientific pap... and those are not sciences. In addition, some sciences - in their early stages - have very little peer support... psychology was not considered a science at first (and many of its early theories were not legitimate scientific theories), but it was, is and always will be a science. There is a very precise and well-defined set of standards that determines what is and what is not a science. Anything that fits those standards, peer support or not, is a science.
You mentioned armchair philosophers, and you're right... who cares what they think? But there are entire, well-defined fields of philosophical research, with professional philosophers publishing well-accepted, rigorously-reviewed scholarly articles that must meet high standards. However, that is neither sufficient nor necessary to make philosophy a science. Philosophy must meet the standards of what is and what is not a science, or it is not a science. It does not meet those standards.[url][/url]Philosophy is definitley a science, and it could be even considered a meta-science, as it is often one level above other sciences..
You still cant understand the difference between a philosopher and a scientist "DUMBO" ( I eat this word and please read this as anything but derogatory)
HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE DEGREE PHD
it is called doctor of Philosophy
You are wrong I am not a practicing scientist
I am a pro scientist
I am not like you who sits and types on the pc and claims that to be right with google support
I guess it is not worth talking to you anyway
Try to have an open mind
and try to to have a decent discussion
when given the references try to read the fulltext of the articles
don't just goggle and start replying
I guess all you know about any subject is what google can give
you
If I may go a step beyond
even religion is a science
Most scientist earn that degree
Thanks for you google generated response
I have got better work than that
Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total
What is meant by an armchair philosopher
You are doing very bad justice to Stephan Hawkings
Is the philosopher supposed to be a traveler?
Sorry i'm late... Too much comet Holmes watching...
I'm happy to read that Indi cleared up yagna..'s misunderstandings but yagna... doesn't seem to think so. So it goes.
Philosophers are monkeys that think about thinking about thinking.
Scientists are monkeys that use tools in repeatably demonstrable ways to test ideas to breaking point. Then they revolt and start over...
It seems, however, that since 1998, all physics is now solvable with the tool-kit of special unitary group theory in eleven dimensions - a gift from mathematicians. 
http://endlessuniverse.net/ is about Steinhardt & Turok's book on SU(11) theory.
It's 'urgent reading', according to Roger Penrose, "It may well be closer to the truth than you think!".
Great times ahead, ed. | Quote: |
| There is lots of peer support for things like "Intelligent Design" and other pseudo-scientific pap... |
Not by current scientists. These fields only have support within their own communities.
| Quote: |
| In addition, some sciences - in their early stages - have very little peer support... psychology was not considered a science at first (and many of its early theories were not legitimate scientific theories), but it was, is and always will be a science. |
I think it's perfectly legitimate that there are still doubts about it as a science given the extent to which things are generalised to an hopelessly large scale, and the degree to which this is a problem is reflected by the fact that it is still not universally accepted in the community.
| Quote: |
| But there are entire, well-defined fields of philosophical research, with professional philosophers publishing well-accepted, rigorously-reviewed scholarly articles that must meet high standards. |
Yes, but they are scholarly-reviewed by other philosphers and not by groups that are unambiguously 'scientists'. Furthermore, the very idea of rigorous and reproducible scientific method is null in philosophy as it's about coming up with and accounting for ideas rather than proving that these ideas are true. | Indi wrote: |
i do not say metaphysics is philosophy. Metaphysicists do.
|
THis is what Mr Indi says in this post
unfortunately he has poor memory
or does he think that since the post is transfered to a different section readers wont knwo what he said
here is what he said in the other post from which this disscussion has emerged
| Indi wrote: |
Biology is science.
Metaphysics is philosophy.
|
Funny MR Indi prefers to lie to suit his cause | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| You still cant understand the difference between a philosopher and a scientist "DUMBO" |
Wow. ^_^;
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
HAVE YOU HEARD OF THE DEGREE PHD
it is called doctor of Philosophy |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Have heard of a degree called Doctor of Philosophy
Most scientist are awarded that
Try asking google that
I think even knowing what is Philosophy too much for you let alone science
I guess I dont have to say much about Philosophy as a science |
^_^;
i don't need to ask Google what that means. i know already, as does everyone who has a PhD. As you say, many scientists have PhD's. But you know what, so do many artists. Are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face now that Fine Arts is a science? ^_^; How about a PhD in Sports Medicine... is that philosophy? ^_^;
You keep mocking Google, but you really should use it. If you did you would find out the answers to the questions you are asking me... and they're not the answers you think they are.
You ask: why does a scientist receive a doctorate in philosophy?
The answer is: because once upon a time, the only thing you could study was philosophy. There were no places that offered degrees in science, art, languages, social studies... nothing. All they had was philosophy. They called the study of the natural world "natural philosophy", and the study of morality, ethics, theology and so on "moral philosophy". Thus the only degree that you could get was in philosophy, and this has stuck with us historically. We still hand out doctorates in philosophy... for everything ranging from philosophy, to science, to art, to religious studies... everything.
Once upon a time, there were no scientists - everyone was a natural philosopher. But you know, we grew up. We invented science and the scientific method, so that we don't study "natural philosophy" anymore. We study science. Yes, science grew out of philosophy - no one denies that. But science became something in its own right that is not philosophy. Science grew out of philosophy, but science is not philosophy. A tree grows out of a seed, but a tree is not a seed.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
You are wrong I am not a practicing scientist
I am a pro scientist |
^_^; *sigged*
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| I am not like you who sits and types on the pc and claims that to be right with google support |
Oh, goodness no. You sit and type on the PC and claim to be right without Google support. ^_^;
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I guess it is not worth talking to you anyway
Try to have an open mind
and try to to have a decent discussion
when given the references try to read the fulltext of the articles
don't just goggle and start replying |
i read every article i had access to without going out of my way, and every other article i read summaries. None of them agrees with your claims. Not one.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
If I may go a step beyond
even religion is a science |
| Coclus wrote: |
| Philosophy is definitley a science, and it could be even considered a meta-science, as it is often one level above other sciences.. |
Religion is a science... philosophy is a science... what next? Fingerpainting?
You can't just say ____ is a science, or the word science becomes meaningless. _____ is a science if and only if it meets the standards required to be a science. Religion does not. Neither does philosophy.
| simplyw00x wrote: |
| Quote: | | There is lots of peer support for things like "Intelligent Design" and other pseudo-scientific pap... |
Not by current scientists. These fields only have support within their own communities.
| Quote: | | In addition, some sciences - in their early stages - have very little peer support... psychology was not considered a science at first (and many of its early theories were not legitimate scientific theories), but it was, is and always will be a science. |
I think it's perfectly legitimate that there are still doubts about it as a science given the extent to which things are generalised to an hopelessly large scale, and the degree to which this is a problem is reflected by the fact that it is still not universally accepted in the community.
| Quote: | | But there are entire, well-defined fields of philosophical research, with professional philosophers publishing well-accepted, rigorously-reviewed scholarly articles that must meet high standards. |
Yes, but they are scholarly-reviewed by other philosphers and not by groups that are unambiguously 'scientists'. Furthermore, the very idea of rigorous and reproducible scientific method is null in philosophy as it's about coming up with and accounting for ideas rather than proving that these ideas are true. |
Ah, but now your argument becomes circular. A field is only a science if scientists call it a science, right? So what if I said Physics, Chemistry and Biology are not sciences? Prove me wrong.
What you will do is try to point to scientists and say: look, they think physics is a science. But then i say... are they physicists, chemists or biologists? If they are... then their opinion doesn't count. ^_^
That is why we don't rely on peer support to define a science. We have a definition that is simple, clear and practical. Physics, chemistry and biology fit that definition. Even if no one in the world called physics a science, it would still be a science, because it fits the definition.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
I think even knowing what is Philosophy too much for you let alone science
I guess I dont have to say much about Philosophy as a science |
Yeah? ^_^
Let's review your arguments for why philosophy is a science:
1.) Because some papers i found on teh intarnets said so (when they actually don't).
2.) Because scientists earn a doctorate of philosophy (when artists earn the same thing).
3.) Because i'm using Google, and therefore don't know what i'm talking about.
4.) Because you say so.
Let's review my arguments for why philosophy is not a science:
1.) Because there is a definition that defines what is science, and philosophy does not fit that definition.
Well, gee, looks like you got me. ^_^;
| newolder wrote: |
| I'm happy to read that Indi cleared up yagna..'s misunderstandings but yagna... doesn't seem to think so. So it goes. |
Long time no see. ^_^
Yes, some people learn by examing facts and altering their beliefs to best agree with those facts, others learn by yelling "SHUT THE HELL UP AND LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY, DUMBASS". ^_^; | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
i do not say metaphysics is philosophy. Metaphysicists do.
|
THis is what Mr Indi says in this post
unfortunately he has poor memory
or does he think that since the post is transfered to a different section readers wont knwo what he said
here is what he said in the other post from which this disscussion has emerged
| Indi wrote: |
Biology is science.
Metaphysics is philosophy.
|
Funny MR Indi prefers to lie to suit his cause |
Wow ^_^;Actually there is a lot of brick batting here without doing justice to the topic
That includes me
Here is what I have to say about the topic
Firstly lets consider this
Philo-sophia is greek "love of wisdom" and sciencia is latin "knowledge" the greek equivalent being "episteme"
Is it true that wisdom and knowledge are the same? Knowledge revolves around facts and wisdom on the other hand is abstract and need not be a fact. wisdom is more bound by time and space coordinates and can change with them just to put it in simple terms
what is wisdom in one place at a certain time need not be wisdom at another place and time
( there are exceptions ) But knowledge is not bound as is wisdom at least to that degree
In Science one tries to get at the specifics and facts, the actual info in sequence that we can point down and create meaning from. In Philosophy one tries to give the impression of seeing at the larger picture and comprehend the inter and intra relations of what it all means, the underpinning for survival to commence with.
Philosophy was at one time a contemplation to start off where natural science ends, and in an esoteric sense to be the ultimate "science", in the larger sense the definitive knowledge. Most hard core scientists and rationalists in the present era emphasize that there is no knowledge beyond the natural sciences, and consequently also that philosophy in its pure form actually does not exist. In fact some say that it (philosophy) is a discussion about the something that science hasn't yet considered machines/ methods to scrutinize, and hence puts it aside as a speculative branch of science. ( that is of course if Indi agrees)
This is paradoxical and creates a wee bit of confusion as Physics an important branch of science is speculative itself and in fact eg.nobody knows much about the existence of subatomic particles. But this paradox makes us understand why philosophy was the fore runner of what we call science ( which actually was not invented but rather discovered because knowledge is always there it is not created )
History ( and Indi too!) says that where philosophy ended science began and now it seems that where science ends philosophy begins That is because Philosophy asks the most vague of the questions and surprisingly never answers that at least not convincingly as science does and most of the answers are as vague as the questions themselves
One can say that philosophy is a kind of science which tends to ignore the hard core system ( which science employs) of hierarchical thinking. In hierarchies, you go from wide-ranging to the precise. In science it is basically asking organized as such. A top down approach ( eg from the whole organism to the molecule). But philosophy takes you right to the core
But again that is not all
there are a lot of differences between science and philosophy
The distinction between Science and Philosophy is that that Science treats experimental data. In order to conduct science there ought to be already conformity about the use of instruments, the units of dimension and the significance of hypothetical terms. Most of the 19 and 20th C physicists did very little inspection and spent a lot if not most of their endeavor in theorizing. This goes to show that ( at least what they thought that single experimental counterpoint is sufficient to misrepresent a vigorous theory. But this not the truth anymore physicists now are in search of observing the elementary particle instead of hypothesizing their presence.
The contention that philosophy is a branch of natural science is by and large based on the chronological detail when ancient thinkers called philosophers, explored subjects a number of which, when became adequately evolved, got classified and included elite followers of their own, and then became independent in existence separating away from the parent idea or subject. But the parent idea still kept name of philosophy. One can expect a lot more to evolve from philosophy. It is just that when concrete answers are found to philosophical question it no more remains philosophy but becomes science.
But the truth remains that in ancient times the an assortment of fields of awareness were not well-known, and who tried to seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge on any subject be it history, biology etc was called a philosopher. Whereas now knowledge seekers in the quest of explaining phenomenon are called scientists
studies which no more called philosophy do not in subject matter or any other way diverge from philosophy as fundamentally as does mathematics from the natural sciences.
Till the Renaissance, 'philosophy' and 'science' were well thought-out to be the same discipline.
Modern philosophy is usually considered to commence with the beginning of modern physical and biological science. Wherein scientist thought ( still think) that all questions can be answered and explained and the modern philosopher says not "all" can be answered but those not answered by science can be answered by philosophy albeit in a vague manor ( because there is freedom to do that in philosophy and not in science
Just a reminder here that
this is a discussion you can always refute someones viewpoint without insulting or questioning credentials
Have an open mind question the axioms
Every topic can be argued to and for
Questioning
Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
please do not double post but instead use the edit button. 2 Posts made by the same user in a short time and no other posts between them are not allowed.
Also please stop insulting each other:
| Quote: |
| SHUT THE HELL UP AND LISTEN TO WHAT I SAY, DUMBASS |
| Quote: |
| You still cant understand the difference between a philosopher and a scientist "DUMBO" |
And don't post one liners:
In order that this doesn't wander too far, should we all re-group after watching David Malone's excellent 1-off documentary, initially shown on BBCTV4? It's a very fine take on science & philosophy, imho.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dangerous-Knowledge
Starts with Georg Cantor and grows exponentially from there...
Great and liberating stuff. At least, it ought to be. 
ed.
P.S. Apologies for recent absence - much chaos hereabouts and mtb-ing has got itself firmly in my blood now...
Anyone seen/heard from Bikerman recently? | Indi wrote: |
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:12 am Post subject: Philosophy.
But do not doubt for a second that philosophy is indeed a science. The only thing that separates it from what we normally call sciences is that philosophy is not limited to concerns of nature. |
Actually I just saw the long well written essay in philosophy by Indi just about now
and guess what Indi has said ( quoted above)
An what does he/she say now
| Indi wrote: |
Let's review my arguments for why philosophy is not a science:
1.) Because there is a definition that defines what is science, and philosophy does not fit that definition |
. Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 6:55 am
Philosophers seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge and I guess Indi is arguing for the sake of argumentIn order for a question to be scientific, it must be answerable using the scientific method. Philisophical questions are not answerable via the scientific method. Therefore, philosophy is not a science. Science, however, has underpinnings in philosophy. In fact, the soundness and applicability of the scientific method can be argued scientifically as well as philosophically. In that sense, science is (or is at least reliant on) a particular philosophy. Philosophy, however, cannot be said to be a science.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
There is a very thin line between metaphysics, philosofy [sic] and religion
Metaphysics is a science
Edit by Rvec: This topic was part of Speed of thought ?!, but because it was too far off-topic (and I got an angry pm ) I split it. |
None of those is a science. In fact, they directly oppose science. It is interesting however to consider the motivations behind philosophy. Science arises because a better understanding of reality allows us to do less work for the same result or achieve new results (mechanical advantage and computers respectively). However, we develop knowledge in science far faster than we can harness it. We have math with no bearing on reality and no relevance to real world problems and theories about the nature of black holes which we may one day control but for this time are not controllable.
I wonder if the pursuit of knowledge without a necessary goal differs greatly from philosophy. I guess we could ultimately use science to some end whereas the rewards for philosophy seems pretty intangible. At the same time, I don't believe in a God or a greater purpose to reality so perhaps the knowledge of how to lead a good life which is defined through philosophy is as important as quantum mechanicsScience has its origin in philosophy. Philosophy, however, is not science. Yes, I speak as a scientist, and one who has an interest in general philosophy as well.
I may as well slightly expand my rationale here 
Science, as you all know, is simply a process and mode of thought of observation; generally an observation that is explored for cause/effect, using a specific form of testing, ie. controlled experiment. Philosophy is, in essence, thought exercise; pondering questions, asking "why", but it does not necessarily include the standardized testing of the questions being pondered. There's no real structure to philosophy, and often, there are no right or wrong answers, as it's all cerebral in nature. It's the structure of science and the pursuit of evidence that separates it from general philosophy. Philosophy is not a science, it is more a sickness of the mind and soul. Is the imposible intent of a man to find the truth by himselve.
*UGH*
| Quote: |
Philo-sophia is greek "love of wisdom" and sciencia is latin "knowledge" the greek equivalent being "episteme" ... etc. etc. |
You can't use dictionary-bashing to solve this. Semantics is not going to determine the answer to this question, as obviously philosophy is viewed differently now to how it was 2000 years ago by greek philosophers.
| Quote: |
| Ah, but now your argument becomes circular. A field is only a science if scientists call it a science, right? So what if I said Physics, Chemistry and Biology are not sciences? Prove me wrong. |
Then the collected body of people who society calls scientists and who call each other scientists say you're wrong. My argument ins't circular but the method of deciding what's a science is. Something is a science if it's accepted by the scientific community, and the scientific community is composed of people and ideas that other people have previously deemed 'scientific' It's not circular at all... something is science if it uses the scientific method. That's really all science is; a method and perspective.
I AGREE
Philosophy is not a science
| Quote: |
| Philosophy is not a science |
Not sure I'm happy being on the same side of a debate as someone who thinks that there is a "speed of thought" and that this phenomenon constitutes metaphysics... | Ankhanu wrote: |
I may as well slightly expand my rationale here
Science, as you all know, is simply a process and mode of thought of observation; generally an observation that is explored for cause/effect, using a specific form of testing, ie. controlled experiment. Philosophy is, in essence, thought exercise; pondering questions, asking "why", but it does not necessarily include the standardized testing of the questions being pondered. There's no real structure to philosophy, and often, there are no right or wrong answers, as it's all cerebral in nature. It's the structure of science and the pursuit of evidence that separates it from general philosophy. |
Hmm....I'd have to disagree a little here. I accept that 'philosophy' is difficult to define and I also accept that it is not synonymous with or equivalent to science (though, as you rightly say, science 'grew out of' philosophy).
I think, however, that we can say that there is some structure in philosophy. A resonable definition might be 'a logical critical examination or system of thought'. Logic is, I suggest, an essential feature of philosophy and that means there is some structure implicit..Yeah, you are right. I just kinda assumed logic to be understood...
I must be more explicit, I suppose
I didn't mean to infer that philosophy has no structure... rather that it doesn't necessarily include an evidence collection method to its structure. | Ankhanu wrote: |
| It's not circular at all... something is science if it uses the scientific method. That's really all science is; a method and perspective. |
That is not what i called circular. Quite the opposite, that is what i said determines what is and what is not a science. However, your description of what science is is a little lacking. Science is many things beyond simply the method and perspective (which is really a by-product of the method, or vice-versa). Science is also the body of knowledge collected by means of the scientific method.
What i called circular was simplyw00x's argument that scientists determine what is and what is not science. That is what is circular. i asked him to prove to me that physics, chemistry and biology were sciences using that method, and he replied that they are sciences because physicists, chemists and biologists say they are... without a trace of irony.
Determining whether something is or is not science based on whether or not it uses the scientific method is not circular, and is in fact the one and only right way to do it.
Since philosophy does not use the scientific method, it is not science. It's as simple as that. Yes, philosophy contributes to science (and science to philosophy)... but that doesn't make it a science. Yes, what was once the realm of philosophy is now studied by scientists... but that doesn't make it a science. One thing and one thing only determines whether philosophy might be a science: whether it uses the scientific method.
It does not. Therefore it is not science.Although Ladies and Gentlemen I clearly agree that Philosophy cannot be given the status of a branch of science
There are certain things to be considered here about science itself. the strict definition states that "knowledge gained in the course of study or practice," or "knowledge covering universal truths of the operation of general laws, as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
But one should see that the centrality of the realist scientific method does not only depend on its reliance on scrutiny and experimentation. Scientific claims are by no means evaluated purely in relation to the findings of particular experiments. Rather claims are appraised by considering a large range of issues which includes experimental findings; theories; ideas about method; statistics and so on
Here again science is guarded by four important institutional imperatives: universalism, communism, disinterestedness and organised scepticism. These constitute the norms of science. To be clearer
Communism needs that knowledge is freely shared; organized scepticism, that all knowledge claims are reviewed for their theoretical consistency and empirical sufficiency; disinterestedness and universalism, that everyone’s knowledge claims are assessed by essentially the identical impersonal criteria and thus that methodical status is gained through merit and value rather than benefaction or social position.
The point to ponder here is how well or how bad philosophy fits here. If it fits poorly here then I dare say it can even be dismissed as a wasted human endeavor
Philosophy I would say is not an empirical science (observation or experiment method)
Again if we have to go by definition to classify philosophy as not a science then I wish to bring it to your notice that Philosophy is most difficult to define. Most definitions of philosophy are controversial.
In a discussion of this kind ( the topic above)
People have a extensive range of resources that can be used for patronising descriptions, including notions of lies, delusions, mistakes, flattery, deceptions and misrepresentations, all of which can be used on to challenge the adequacy of a depiction. Given that there are these resources for undermining factual versions, hence there certainly is a set of other (re)sources that can be used to evaluate a version and make it complicated to weaken. These resources can be used to build a description as a factual or rather an actual account.
| Quote: |
| Determining whether something is or is not science based on whether or not it uses the scientific method is not circular, and is in fact the one and only right way to do it. |
Define the 'scientific method' and explain how this single term can encompass the vastly different things which biologists, chemists and physicists do (think of the difference between theoretical chemists/physicists and biology such as Louis Pasteur's discovery of Penicillin) - then explain how this fails to encompass philosophy, psychology or homeopathy. | simplyw00x wrote: |
| Define the 'scientific method' and explain how this single term can encompass the vastly different things which biologists, chemists and physicists do (think of the difference between theoretical chemists/physicists and biology such as Louis Pasteur's discovery of Penicillin) - then explain how this fails to encompass philosophy, psychology or homeopathy. |
Simply put the scientific method comprises :
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions.*
This is a bit simplified but not, I hope, overly simplistic.
*The test(s) should aim to disprove the prediction(s), not prove it/them. In other words the testing should seek to refute the central hypothesis.
Some apects of psychology use scientific method (neuro-psychology for example) but others rely on introspection or other methodology which is often neither predictive nor testable.
Homeopathy is based on a 'water memory' hypothesis which has never been shown to actually exist and has certainly never been able to pass stage 3.The Wikipedia entry on the Scientific Method gives a bit of a history as well as the base concepts behind what it is; this little page from a University of Rochester professor also summarizes it nicely.
Though the various disciplines of science are fairly disparate in what they observe, they all use this basic concept of developing, testing and refuting knowledge. Whether you're a biologist (like me) or a physicist, the base concepts of how knowledge is formed are the same, and it's all about the Scientific Method. It is this method that defines science.
(Psst, Pasteur worked in germ theory and developed pasteurization; penicillin was Sir Alexander Fleming, a little over a century after Pasteur's death.) Shows how much biology I know...
Still, the definition of the 'scientific method' isn't exactly concrete, and as Bikerman said, various bits even of the same discipline can be descirbed by it whereas others can't. So surely it's not adequate for determining the whole scientific character of a field of study? Actually I think we are digressing a bit
We are now into what is science (although that I think is basic knowledge in order to answer the question if Phil is a science or not)
But here I see a couple of posts on Scientific methods)
Have you thought of Discovery as against invention in Science
Discovery in science (most great discovers in the history of the world are renowned scientists)
need not follow the scientific methods described above and yet it comes up with most significant findings
that satisfy all the requirements of science ( Null hypothesis, statistical significance and repeatability)
Epistemologists have debated at extent if at all scientific discovery is a coherent and
rational process. If it is, it ought to be achievable to write computer programs to discover laws or theories; and if this true then there should be a logic of discovery. But I guess it is not so
That is to say that science is just beyond experimentation, mathematization. Actually conceptual analysis with an open frame of mind unhindered by the Human created laws of science ( Like the scientific Methods explained by Bikerman above) actually gives rise to supra logical science
The right method is important for peer acceptance of say my research ( I cannot publish in a journal without that) but science does neither starts there not does it end there.
Again I am trying to say that if we just go by the definition of science and philosophy to answer the question "is philosophy a science" then I guess we are just wasting our time in the forum because there always ( google and other net resources to clear our doubts as indy says)
One should not forget that every system of classification in any subject may it me science or arts is by humans for ease of study
| Indi wrote: |
Since philosophy does not use the scientific method, it is not science. |
Here again I wish to say that just because that popular philosophy does not use Scientific methods It should not be taken for granted that no philosopher uses scientific methods in philosophy
I would like to bring your attention a book ( which I happened to read a few years back) called "The Rise of Scientific Philosophy
By Hans Reichenbach ( Late Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Los Angeles.)
Apart from this there is a whole lot of people who try and approach philosophy in a scientific manner
A mention about Mario Augusto Bunge is apt here.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
| Whether you're a biologist (like me) or a physicist, the base concepts of how knowledge is formed are the same, and it's all about the Scientific Method. It is this method that defines science. |
Actually knowledge is also formed by other methods including scientific methods
Simple human factor also is involved here
I think all of us here agree that Logic is essential for both Science and Phil.
Logic involves “units” of occurrence, nonexistence and quantity or scale or measure, leading through the principles of concordance, difference and associated discrepancy. These are in fact simple guides to initiation of empirical generalization, leading to discover experimental regularities or affirmative correlations among known factors. Bu where does this stand when it approaches to the uncovering of
unheard of entity or forces, for example the unifying theories.
Most theories like the the atomic theory, the relativity theory, theory of gravitation and the
electromagnetic theory did not actually come out from strict scientific methods.
Actually what I am trying to say that to answer the question "is Phil a Science" if we are going to follow the scientific method we may not be entirely correct. The alternative is to follow the philosophical method to answer the question ( where we are not laid back and restricted by definitions and rules)
Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:36 pm; edited 1 time in total I agree that scientific method does not define whether a statement or group of statements is itself scientific. Scientific method is simply an agreed methodology for attacking problems rather than an attempt to define what science is.
What we are seeking, therefore, in attacking the central question here is a demarcation between science and non/pseudo-science and, I believe, for this we should look to Karl Popper's work.
Popper would agree that there is no specific methodology necessary in defining science. Instead, he argues that the fundamental demarcation is that of falsifiability. In other words:
If a statement/posit/theory can be tested and falsified (refuted) then it is scientific. If not then it is non/pseudo-science. | simplyw00x wrote: |
| Still, the definition of the 'scientific method' isn't exactly concrete, and as Bikerman said, various bits even of the same discipline can be descirbed by it whereas others can't. So surely it's not adequate for determining the whole scientific character of a field of study? |
The definition is quite concrete. What part of it do you think is under any question in practice? Of course, philosophers are always trying to improve the definition because it is not perfect, but perfection has nothing to do with clarity. Even though we are well aware that the scientific method is not perfect, there is no question about what it is and how to use it.
And you misread Bikerman. He said some forms of psychology use scientific methods, and others do not. That does not create any kind of conflict. It just means that some branches of psychology are not doing science. It does nothing to say that the field itself is not science.
To put it into perspective, it is very common for young scientific fields to resort to things that are not really scientific but "just work", or at the very least provide some data to use - at least until better methods are found. Even in physics this was true in the past, although the field is so mature now that it is no longer acceptable. Numerous properties of light were described and presumed for centuries before there was any imaginable hope of testing them empirically, or any real reason for believing they should be that way. Eventually the field matured to the point where practical testing and realistic speculation (speculation based on actual observed properties rather than what scientists "felt" light should be like) could be done. The same will happen for psychology as it further matures. Eventually people will be able to describe - quantitatively - emotions, and emotional responses, and will develop ways to measure and/or test them. The ancient Greeks predicted the atomic structure of materials based - not on any kind of scientific approach - but on what "felt" right to them, and they used that as a basis for their nascent fields of materials science, metallurgy and engineering. It wasn't science, and it was only right by fluke, and it doesn't mean that the rest of the observations they made about nature weren't science.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I agree that scientific method does not define whether a statement or group of statements is itself scientific. Scientific method is simply an agreed methodology for attacking problems rather than an attempt to define what science is.
What we are seeking, therefore, in attacking the central question here is a demarcation between science and non/pseudo-science and, I believe, for this we should look to Karl Popper's work.
Popper would agree that there is no specific methodology necessary in defining science. Instead, he argues that the fundamental demarcation is that of falsifiability. In other words:
If a statement/posit/theory can be tested and falsified (refuted) then it is scientific. If not then it is non/pseudo-science. |
i don't think that goes nearly far enough. i would, at the very least, make it: "... can be tested and falsified (refuted) by making observations of the natural universe, then it is science..." | Indi wrote: |
| And you misread Bikerman. He said some forms of psychology use scientific methods, and others do not. That does not create any kind of conflict. It just means that some branches of psychology are not doing science. It does nothing to say that the field itself is not science. |
Yes. That is exactly what I meant and I happily accept that clarification.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | If a statement/posit/theory can be tested and falsified (refuted) then it is scientific. If not then it is non/pseudo-science. |
i don't think that goes nearly far enough. i would, at the very least, make it: "... can be tested and falsified (refuted) by making observations of the natural universe, then it is science..." |
Yes, I think I would accept that addition. In science observation trumps theory every time, and this is central to the endeavour. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | | And you misread Bikerman. He said some forms of psychology use scientific methods, and others do not. That does not create any kind of conflict. It just means that some branches of psychology are not doing science. It does nothing to say that the field itself is not science. |
Yes. That is exactly what I meant and I happily accept that clarification.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | If a statement/posit/theory can be tested and falsified (refuted) then it is scientific. If not then it is non/pseudo-science. |
i don't think that goes nearly far enough. i would, at the very least, make it: "... can be tested and falsified (refuted) by making observations of the natural universe, then it is science..." |
Yes, I think I would accept that addition. In science observation trumps theory every time, and this is central to the endeavour. |
Now our job is cut out
Is Philosophy a science
Answer in a scientific way
for that we have to falsify the statement by making observations of the natural universe
We falsify it by adopting the definition of science and philosophy which again is given by science itself
We come a full circle
Is Philosophy a science
Answer in a Philosophical way
we keep going round and round and proposing various theories, ideas and opinions
and may well probably agree to come to a consensusThere is no fundamental problem.
Philosophy is not a science. Nobody has made any serious arguments to the contrary and I know of no philosophers who would try to make such a case - largely because it would limit philosophy to problems which can be attacked using scientific method and philosophy is not, and should not be, limited in such a way.
Fundamental considerations in philosophy such as truth or justice cannot be tackled satisfactorily by scientific methodology alone, although such methodology can often be used to inform the debate.
Analogy may be the way to go here. Let's use... religion to ask the same question that's being asked here. Basically the question on philosophy/science, if applied to religion would look something like: Is religion Christianity? or Is religion Hinduism?
Basically, the posed is question "Is overarching umbrella classification a subset of one of its subset classifications?"
Obviouly, religion, the general concept, can't be completely described by using a specific example of a religion that is contained within its coverage. Similarly, philosophy can't be completely described by the subset school of philosophy, science. There's a reason why, for example you get a Philosphical Doctorate (PhD) in sciences, not a Scientific Doctorate in Philosophy.
| Ankhanu wrote: |
Analogy may be the way to go here. Let's use... religion to ask the same question that's being asked here. Basically the question on philosophy/science, if applied to religion would look something like: Is religion Christianity? or Is religion Hinduism?
Basically, the posed is question "Is overarching umbrella classification a subset of one of its subset classifications?"
Obviouly, religion, the general concept, can't be completely described by using a specific example of a religion that is contained within its coverage. Similarly, philosophy can't be completely described by the subset school of philosophy, science. There's a reason why, for example you get a Philosphical Doctorate (PhD) in sciences, not a Scientific Doctorate in Philosophy. |
OK...interesting point....
Basically I see three ways to regard the relationship between philosophy and science:
1) Philosophy as 'proto-science'. In this view philosophy is free to study things which will perhaps go on to be the subjects of scientific study.
2) Philosophy as a discipline within science - a viewpoint proposed by Ducasse but not supported by many others.
3) Philosophy is in some cases science and in others not. This could be argued to support your definition of philosophy as an 'overarching' discipline, since it distinguishes between 'speculative philosophy' and 'scientific philosophy' as two components of the whole.It all started with the post on speed of thought
and has progressed thus far
I have gained considerable knowledge from the posts ( all of them)
I think we are all satisfied with the outcome of the discussion
Bikerman sums it all
Thanks I am off this topic
Has any philosopher found any holes in e8?
No.
How is that possible?
They simply don't have the 'knowledge' to begin until they understand that it's all balls in chaotic motion and nothing else besides.
Science as I know it is doing this. Someone comes with new idea and if the idea is good and reasonable someone tries to prove whether the idea is true or not by experimenting. This is the basic property of science. I make decision with respect to results from experiment. On the other hand, I think philosophy is not science, because someone comes with the new idea and others too and everybody is arguing who is right. No experiment, just empty words. But of course you cannot test some things by experimenting, so philosphy has its place on this world. But science will always have better results, because people do not need to believe or disagree with someone, they can always test the idea.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
There is a very thin line between metaphysics, philosofy and religion
Metaphysics is a science
Edit by Rvec: This topic was part of Speed of thought ?!, but because it was too far off-topic (and I got an angry pm ) I split it. |
| redace919 wrote: |
| Science as I know it is doing this. Someone comes with new idea and if the idea is good and reasonable someone tries to prove whether the idea is true or not by experimenting. This is the basic property of science. I make decision with respect to results from experiment. On the other hand, I think philosophy is not science, because someone comes with the new idea and others too and everybody is arguing who is right. No experiment, just empty words. But of course you cannot test some things by experimenting, so philosphy has its place on this world. But science will always have better results, because people do not need to believe or disagree with someone, they can always test the idea. |
Close! You have the general idea correct... it's just some of your wording that's a little problematic.
First, your outline of how science works is roughly right, but the devil is in the details. In science, not just any new idea counts, no matter how good or reasonable it may seem. There is a very specific set of requirements for what ideas count as scientific ideas. Part of that is that they do have to be testable, but that's not all of it.
On the the other hand, in philosophy, every new idea does count, provided that it's reasonable.
Second, science never tries to determine whether anything is true. All science tries to do is make sure it's not wrong. That is not the same thing as proving it right. Far from it. When you come up with an idea that counts as scientific (the technical term is a hypothesis), you use an experiment to try and prove it false. If you prove it false, you ditch the hypothesis and try to come up with a new one. If you fail to prove it false, you try again with a different test. You can never prove it true. (All of this is a gross simplification - but the ultimate point is that science does not prove anything true.)
On the other hand, philosophy is trying to prove truths (in some fields - other fields are trying to prove that it's true that nothing can be proven true... go figure).
Third, philosophy is about arguing who is right, true. But so is science. The difference is that philosophers use reason and logic alone to defend their position, and scientists use reason, logic and evidence, although evidence outweighs everything else. But some branches of science don't use evidence at all, and rely only on arguments from reason and logic. These people are mostly trying to determine which theory best describes what experiments observe, and generally speaking they all take the evidence into account, they just interpret it differently. In science, the ultimate answer will be determined based on experimental evidence - the arguing is really just "what to try next?", if you look at it from a broad enough perspective. But in philosophy, the argument will be resolved by whose logic and reasoning is the best - and no, not all reasons are equal, not by a longshot.
Both science and philosophy make the assumption that there is one "true" answer to each question, and that we are capable of understanding it (maybe with a little work, anyway). Science tries to use evidence to rule out the other possibilities with the hope that it will leave just one possibility... which will be the one "true" answer. Philosophy tries to find the "true" answer to each question as directly as possible, relying on the assumption that only the true answer will work perfectly and all other answers will fail in some subtle way or another.
Fourth, philosophy is hardly about empty words. Philosophical questions often deal with issues that determine life and death... and sometimes even immediate life and death, not life and death in some distantly intellectually conceivable future. The rights afforded to prisoners of war - and who counts as a prisoner of war - are issues that matter a great deal today, right now, in many parts of the world. Is an insurgent in Iraq a prisoner of war, or not? Science will not answer that question for you, i'm afraid.
And finally, it is not correct to say that science gives better results than philosophy. They are answering different questions, and in fact, science is arguably answering the easy questions. You see a plane fly overhead and say "see? science put that there, not philosophy." All true. But think about all the "results" of philosophy apparent in your life. You are not being hunted for sport or food by other people. You have rights. You are very likely not anyone's slave, and neither do you owe payments to anyone for the air that you breathe. You even get to have your own opinions and thoughts. i'd say those are pretty freakin impressive "results" of philosophical thought that you would be unable to live life as you know or even conceive of without. Compared to those "results", planes, trains and automobiles and the other trinkets of science are kinda cool... but not really as fundamentally important to being, or existing as you do.I think that is a rather impressive summary of the issue.
"science is arguably answering the easy questions"
Easy and hard are relative terms
It is because we get the answers it seems easy
in philosophy there are no answers so we term them hard
neither science nor philosophy has anything to do with easy or hard
we cannot scale the question attempted by these areas of investigation that easily
In fact " You see a plane fly overhead and say "see? science put that there, not philosophy."
Science actually did not put the plane there whereas the human philosophy put it there the very idea of flying in the sky was a philosophical approach refined by science
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
...
In fact " You see a plane fly overhead and say "see? science put that there, not philosophy."
Science actually did not put the plane there whereas the human philosophy put it there the very idea of flying in the sky was a philosophical approach refined by science |
This is not meant as 'rude' yagnyavalkya but that's simply bird-talk: it's a bit like monkey-speak but twisted differently.
Flight evolved in nature long before any philosopher was conceived of. The same underlying principle* got Cassini-Huygens to Saturn/Titan & family. To see further required 'ideas' that simply were not discovered until a hundred years ago. Those ideas and a few extras combine now to explain everything.
Cheers for the years. ed. 
* acceleration. | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
There is a very thin line between metaphysics, philosofy and religion
Metaphysics is a science
Edit by Rvec: This topic was part of Speed of thought ?!, but because it was too far off-topic (and I got an angry pm ) I split it. |
I think all theoretical science has a basis in philosophy and that philosophy is certainly the historical beginnings of modern science.
To be taken seriously a scientist must do more than philosophy or think about their topic, they must demonstrate using evidence.
Yes the experts do think beyond the evidence to predict and explain based on their experience. To contribute more than expert opinions they still must use evidence that will stand the test of time. | Indi wrote: |
| On the the other hand, in philosophy, every new idea does count, provided that it's reasonable. |
So who decides what is reasonable and what is unreasonable? are we not going round and round again what is reasonable to one philosopher may not be reasonable to another ( after all is that not what ethics is all about). The clause that and idea will count only if it is reasonable is a very stringent clause and will erode creativity
In addition one should understand that reasonablilty is again bound by time
A philosophical idea sounding unreasonable at this moment of time may be highly reasonable at a future moment of time
On the hand in science reasonablilty is judged within the parameters and confines of a specific time and space and is stated thus when making the hypothesis
| Indi wrote: |
| On the other hand, philosophy is trying to prove truths (in some fields - other fields are trying to prove that it's true that nothing can be proven true... go figure) |
Truth is already proven and only then it is said to be true. Why then “philosophy is trying to prove truths”
| Indi wrote: |
| Third, philosophy is about arguing who is right, true. But so is science. The difference is that philosophers use reason and logic alone to defend their position |
Does it mean that philosophers willfully avoid or discard evidence or does it mean that they only take up questions that science says that has no evidence ( like “ is there an entity called God?)
By not taking the concept of evidence into consideration do the philosophers acknowledge the lack of evidence ( pertaining the above example question)
| Indi wrote: |
| Philosophical questions often deal with issues that determine life and death... and sometimes even immediate life and death, not life and death in some distantly intellectually conceivable future. |
I would say that Medical science deals with questions of life and death including and very importantly
immediate life and death much more effectively than philosophy
In fact agriculture and plant science deals with life and death in some distantly intellectually conceivable future better than philosophy
To put it (c)rudely Philosophy deals with these questions ( life and death?) for time pass of people who don't have the stomach for science and more accurately for those who don't want answers or solutions so that they can claim it has harder than science
| Indi wrote: |
Is an insurgent in Iraq a prisoner of war, or not? Science will not answer that question for you, i'm afraid. |
Actually this is more a scientific question than a philosophical question. AS we have, in this topic been going by definitions to explain the differences between Philosophy and science ( much to my dislike!) I think if we approach the same method
insurgent: 1: a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent 2: one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one's own political party (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/insurgent)
Iraq: The Republic of Iraq, usually known as Iraq is a country in the Middle East spanning most of the northwestern end of the Zagros mountain range, the eastern part of the Syrian Desert and the northern part of the Arabian Desert
A prisoner of war : is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict.
The answer is easy now
But we can always make the answer hard if try and ignore "evidence"
Insurgent; Iraq and Prisoner of war are clearly defined words in Social, geographical and political science areas hence splitting the question by definitions we get simple scientific answers
Specificity here is the word "war" defining this in the context of the question will make it sound harder!
But on the other hand if we want to try and NOT GET an answer we can always philosophizes the issue as we have seen that all philosophy does is to leave the questioner and the answer seeker in limbo!
| Indi wrote: |
| You are not being hunted for sport or food by other people. You have rights. You are very likely not anyone's slave, and neither do you owe payments to anyone for the air that you breathe. |
Like I said before we are ignoring the time and space coordinates when making assumption as such made above
In simple terms these assumptions are true or false depending on the space and time confines
in fact we all know very well that philosophy differs spatially ( eg. Greek Philosophy's, western Philosophy Oriental philosophy etc.,)
1. In the middle of Africa and even in the Islands of Andamans in India people are hunted for Food
There are cannibals still
2. In India there is virtual slavery ever present, people not being able to pay back loans serve as slaves in fact to the extant that the progeny of the debtor is also a virtual slave ( http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html) and http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/India.htm
3. It wont be long before we start paying for air we breathe
in fact little did we think that we would be paying for the water we drink a Century ago! ( please read this it is an interesting article and latest as well ( http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6982493/Countries-asked-to-pay-for.html)
4. In a lot of countries people don't have rights as one would imagine in the west
All these will come under
Social science, Political science and economic science and these questions can most definitely answered by science as we know it
I think ethics is being confused here with philosophy as a whole
as I know it ethics is a branch of philosophy
most the examples cited here are ethical issues
Unlike science ( which is the same for everyone) ethics is different form person to personal country to country but again not always
It is simple as this is layman terms
If you want answers and solutions go for science of you want to beat about the bush go for philosophyI won't post an extensive reply to this, I'll leave it to Indi to continue if he wishes. I'll simply pick up on the point that seems most objectionable to me.
You try to assert that the question of Iraq and prisoners of war can be tackled scientifically. You make your case by relying on semantic definitions of what insurgents, prisoners of war and countries are.
This has nothing to do with science - where is the empiricism or experimental observation? Is there an experiment you can perform to differentiate between a POW and 'detainee'? Can you demonstrate experimentally why Iraq is Iraq? What experimental protocol would you suggest to differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
These are philosophical, sociological and political concepts which are to some extent agreed (by no means universally) but are not 'testable' in any meaningful way. They are, therefore, not 'science' at all. I think this illustrates the difference between science and philosophy rather well.
You seem to be taking the position that most things can be tackled scientifically and that philosophy is a cop-out for those who can't do science. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference.
| Bikerman wrote: |
I won't post an extensive reply to this, I'll leave it to Indi to continue if he wishes. I'll simply pick up on the point that seems most objectionable to me.
You try to assert that the question of Iraq and prisoners of war can be tackled scientifically. You make your case by relying on semantic definitions of what insurgents, prisoners of war and countries are.
This has nothing to do with science - where is the empiricism or experimental observation? Is there an experiment you can perform to differentiate between a POW and 'detainee'? Can you demonstrate experimentally why Iraq is Iraq? What experimental protocol would you suggest to differentiate between a freedom fighter and a terrorist?
These are philosophical, sociological and political concepts which are to some extent agreed (by no means universally) but are not 'testable' in any meaningful way. They are, therefore, not 'science' at all. I think this illustrates the difference between science and philosophy rather well.
You seem to be taking the position that most things can be tackled scientifically and that philosophy is a cop-out for those who can't do science. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference. |
Yes thats exactly what I am trying to tell even philosophy has to have an understanding of what is Iraq, POW etc., and that is where the difficulty comes
How then does Philosophy define Iraq
In fact what I want to stress is if you need a meaningful answer the question of Iraq and prisoners of war can be tackled scientifically by social , political and economic science ( which do not exactly rely on the hard core Physical or biological science methods) rather than going to philosophy not to get an answer.
Just to come back to the core question of this post " Is philosophy a science?"
Is there an experiment you can perform to differentiate between a POW ( read Philosophy) and 'detainee' ( read science )? Can you demonstrate experimentally why Iraq ( read Science or Philosophy) is Iraq ( read Science or Philosophy)? What experimental protocol would you suggest to differentiate between a freedom fighter (read Philosophy) and a terrorist ( read Science)?
I bet some one has an answer here that would solve our problem!
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Fundamental considerations in philosophy such as truth or justice cannot be tackled satisfactorily by scientific methodology alone, although such methodology can often be used to inform the debate. |
If by the above statement you mean that philosophical methodologies ( if there are any?) can be used to tackle these questions. How well does philosophy tackle these questions to give answers that are universally accepted?
" cannot be tackled by scientific methodology alone" what are the other non scientific methodologies that can be used to tackle these fundamental question?
Is the Hypothesis : Philosophy is a science testable?
| Indi wrote: |
| On the the other hand, in philosophy, every new idea does count, provided that it's reasonable |
My new Idea is that Philosophy is a science
I guess going by the pace of discussion here the idea does not count probably because it is not
"reasonable"
What I am trying to tell you here is that the very question is Philosophical
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Fundamental considerations in philosophy such as truth or justice cannot be tackled satisfactorily by scientific methodology alone, although such methodology can often be used to inform the debate. |
" Fundamental considerations in philosophy such as truth ( My truth here is "philosophy is a science") or justice cannot be tackled satisfactorily by scientific methodology alone, although such methodology can often be used to inform the debate
Which means here that we are just informing the debate or are we?
So how do we get an answer to this question
| Bikerman wrote: |
| tackled satisfactorily by scientific methodology alone |
What are the other non scientific methodology we use to tackle this question
Will the answer obtained be universally accepted?
Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total | Bikerman wrote: |
| I won't post an extensive reply to this, I'll leave it to Indi to continue if he wishes. |
Absolutely not. It's all yours if you want it. | Indi wrote: |
| The difference is that philosophers use reason and logic alone to defend their position, |
| Indi wrote: |
| [But some branches of science don't use evidence at all, and rely only on arguments from reason and logic. |
Can the above statements taken as support to say that Philosophy is a branch of science that doesn't use evidence at all, and rely only on arguments from reason and logic.
| Indi wrote: |
| [Second, science never tries to determine whet |