What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by growthhormone » December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am

What is the differences between philosophy and science?

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2704
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by LuckyR » December 27th, 2017, 3:45 am

growthhormone wrote:
December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am
What is the differences between philosophy and science?
Initially, not much. Over time, science blossomed beyond philosophy.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 355
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Count Lucanor » December 27th, 2017, 2:11 pm

It depends on whether you mean or not "philosophy" as metaphysics and logic, and "science" as positive sciences. There's no positive science without an epistemological (thus, philosophical) base and pure analysis doesn't get too far without some empirical assumptions about reality. Positive sciences in themselves differ, according to their subjects and methods. For me the whole of knowledge is integrated in one science, that refers to an all-encompassing, multidisciplinary, systematic approach to ontology (what there is), gnoseology (what and how we know what there is) and morality, in which pure analysis, logic and empirical facts are merged with human action.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 6585
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Greta » December 27th, 2017, 6:55 pm

In the 19th century the disciplines were combined as 'natural philosophy'. Ultimately, each is attempting to answer the question, "What is actually going on?".

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by growthhormone » December 28th, 2017, 2:02 am

I think it all comes down the definition of philosophy and science. Although the ancient Greeks said philosophy is the "love of wisdom", the contemporary meaning of philosophy has changed. It has changed to a study "looking into the fundamental rules/fundamental relationships governing our universe". This definition make sense because when we say something philosophical it means something fundamental. At the same time, sciences are studies looking into the rules in different subsystems. For example, medicine is s study looking into the system of human body. Sociology is a study looking to the rules of society.

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Londoner » December 29th, 2017, 5:05 am

Science only investigates measurable phenomena.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Burning ghost » December 29th, 2017, 6:19 am

Science deals with facts and philosophy deals with truths. Sometimes truths and facts appeal to each other but they are not synonymous.
AKA badgerjelly

Tamminen
Posts: 447
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Tamminen » December 29th, 2017, 9:03 am

Empirical science tries to make a coherent picture of how nature appears to us. Philosophy tries to make a coherent picture of the appearing itself, as it appears to us in reflection. So philosophy is a reflective science. Empirical science studies the world, philosophy studies our being in the world.

But there are perhaps as many definitions as there are philosophers.

User avatar
AtariKo
New Trial Member
Posts: 3
Joined: January 1st, 2018, 12:35 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by AtariKo » January 1st, 2018, 12:53 am

Philosophy is the activity of thinking in the deepest possible way about the world. Science is the study of the natural world by means of the scientific method (experimentation).

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by growthhormone » January 3rd, 2018, 12:22 am

I believe the "deepest possible way" is the closest answer. I believe philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while sciences deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws.

It can be traced back to the origin. In the ancient Greece, philosophy was defined as "love wisdom" but this term is very ambiguous. Human being uses their wisdom to do all things for example, use wisdom to do cunning things. But this is not philosophy. What the Greeks meant was to perform intellectual activities to search for the answer from environment (external and internal). The whole process of this activity was defined as philosophy, for example, "what compose our world" and methodologies including rhetoric and dialectic. But later, the division of looking into the environment was classified as natural philosophy which now has been changed to the term of science. From the medieval time, Human being's approach to look for answer have developed into the so-called "scientific approach" which is more accurate compared with the ancient time but still falls into the fundamental approach of how to understand the world. When the new approach of looking into the world was formed, many new science developments were achieved. Science as a breakaway division of philosophy left philosophy as a study looking to the most fundamental rules governing our world. That is why philosophy covers much larger system while science only covers their subsystem, a much smaller area. The commonality between these two is they both looking to rules in the universe. The difference is they study different rules.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Namelesss » January 13th, 2018, 6:44 pm

growthhormone wrote:
December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am
What is the differences between philosophy and science?
Philosophy is predominately original critical examination/thoughts, and every other means of Knowing.
All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy.
What is the 'difference' between you, and the nutrition that maintains your good bodily function? That is science's relationship to philosophy.
A 'real' philosopher is up on the cutting edge of science (QM), and ahead of it.
A 'real' scientist need know nothing of philosophy (and usually doesn't/fears it).

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Burning ghost » January 14th, 2018, 12:50 am

Namelesss wrote:
January 13th, 2018, 6:44 pm
growthhormone wrote:
December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am
What is the differences between philosophy and science?
Philosophy is predominately original critical examination/thoughts, and every other means of Knowing.
All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy.
What is the 'difference' between you, and the nutrition that maintains your good bodily function? That is science's relationship to philosophy.
A 'real' philosopher is up on the cutting edge of science (QM), and ahead of it.
A 'real' scientist need know nothing of philosophy (and usually doesn't/fears it).
I cannot see how that makes sense. Phenomenon are discovered by scientific investigation. No philosopher dreamed up the double-slit experiment, and a lot of scientific discoveries happen by accident. Scientists do experimentation and occasionally unusual or completely happenstance reveals something to then be thought about.

There are also several different layers within the scientific discipline. Some commit their careers to experimentation where others concern themselves with more theoretical approaches.

Philosophy began with the analysis of language and science began with the application of theory as a causal tool. Modern day "science" began long after Aristotle.
AKA badgerjelly

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Namelesss » January 14th, 2018, 7:36 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
January 14th, 2018, 12:50 am
Namelesss wrote:
January 13th, 2018, 6:44 pm

Philosophy is predominately original critical examination/thoughts, and every other means of Knowing.
All sciences are feeder branches on the tree of philosophy.
What is the 'difference' between you, and the nutrition that maintains your good bodily function? That is science's relationship to philosophy.
A 'real' philosopher is up on the cutting edge of science (QM), and ahead of it.
A 'real' scientist need know nothing of philosophy (and usually doesn't/fears it).
I cannot see how that makes sense.

I can understand that. Would you like to?
Phenomenon are discovered by scientific investigation.

Okay, I guess not. *__-
'Phenomenon' are discovered by opening your eyes.
Man opens his eyes and sees a a 'rock'.
Man looks at 'rock' and goes; "Huh?"
That is philosophy.
He hits the rock and discovers a quality', conchoidal fracture, perhaps.
That is Science.
One in a mllion questions the basic assumptions, that is philosophy.
It gives science fruitful direction.
No philosopher dreamed up the double-slit experiment,

Willing to just accept that assertion, for the moment, and add; it takes a philosopher/mystic to find any meaning in that experiment.
Philosophy began with the analysis of language and science began with the application of theory as a causal tool.
That you can bald-faced sit there and tell me the definitive beginnings of science and philosophy is something so absurd that even I am left speechless in wonder.
Modern day "science" began long after Aristotle.
Science and philosophy began long before Aristotle.
There is no need for the 'modern day' with philosophy; Truth is Truth no matter when it is presented.
Philosophy informs science, or science is blind, as you say, 'accidental'...

Burning ghost
Posts: 2039
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Burning ghost » January 15th, 2018, 1:45 am

Nameless -

I guess it is pretty wonderful.

Phenomenon are not "discovered by opening your eyes." If that were the case things like special relativity and quantum phenomenon would never have been discovered. By this I mean we build tools that allow us to extend our sensibility. We are intuitively accustomed to the more classical Newtonian approach to the world, but at micro and macro scales our intuitions no longer hold sway over the phenomenon exposed.

No, science as we know it today did not begin before Aristotle. That is simply an ignorant claim, but am I willing to concede you're talking about a completely difference thing when you say "science." To repeat, modern science (as we know it today) is several steps away from anything Aristotle says. Aristotle referred to ... I forget, blah blah of Meno? as the "first scientist"; but the term "scientist" back then is not the same thing as it is today.

I agree that the "raw science" has nothing to say about the "meaning." The human subject uses reason to complete the picture - this is why I said science and philosophy necessarily overlap. The meaning is a "human" meaning. Science, as a methodology has nothing to say, it is merely applied to some idea, question or problem. Reason is required for both fields, but not exclusive to either.

Philosophy came into being through the abstraction of language into the written word. Prior to that I wouldn't dispute that "philosophy" existed in some primitive form. The ability to write speeches down allowed for greater depth of analysis; or rather "analysis" proper. Before this memory was limited and language much less rigid. With the written word the commonalities of communication could then be explored and creativity would flourish.

I do think we are biased today to give less thought to oral traditions though. This is simply due to our lack of access. The only remnants of oral tradition are what we have down in writing. That is what I find fascinating, and along with the Sophistic view of meaning we can see a certaiin pull against more rigid uses of language from which logic and reason developed the western mind set.

"Truth" is "truth" is a tautology. That is what reason has given us. To say such a thing possesses no meaning only the appearance of meaning (it is something a Sophist might say, and in more complex forms it is where mysticism resides - just to be clear I do find use in mysticism as a means of human expression and self exploration.)

What is "true" is defined by the rules agreed upon. 1+1=2 by the rules of addition using abstract forms we call "numbers." When applied to reality this basic rule has multiple applications and uses, that is why we are taught basic addition as children. As a universal "truth" we can say that one banana and one apple together make 2 pieces of fruit; but we cannot say that two pieces of fruit make an apple or a banana ... this is where logic steps in and mathematical and logical proofs are required to refine how we explicate "truth" to our day-to-day experiences of the world.

My disagreement is your assertion that philosophy trumps science because scientists are not interested in philosophy, or as you put it "real" scientists. That says very little and hides a great deal. What you mean by "real" sounds like some personal opinion (one which you choose not to express.)

I would say philosophers and scientists alike are well aware of each others general fields of interests. I do think there is a modern bias against philosophy because there is a lot of words written and it is nowhere near as precise a discipline as science is. Regardless, there is still great value and one without the other seems unimaginable. There is a creative coinlfict between them and that is good news.
AKA badgerjelly

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: What is the differences between philosophy and science?

Post by Namelesss » January 15th, 2018, 3:54 am

Burning ghost wrote:
January 15th, 2018, 1:45 am
Phenomenon are not "discovered by opening your eyes."
It is according to the dictionary, observe;

phe·nom·e·non
fəˈnäməˌnän,fəˈnäməˌnən/
noun
noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena

1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.
"glaciers are unique and interesting natural phenomena"
synonyms: occurrence, event, happening, fact, situation, circumstance, experience, case, incident, episode
"a rare phenomenon"
a remarkable person, thing, or event.
synonyms: marvel, sensation, wonder, prodigy, miracle, rarity, nonpareil; More
informalhumdinger, phenom, stunner, doozy, ripsnorter
"the band was a pop phenomenon"
2.
Philosophy
the object of a person's perception; what the senses or the mind notice.


If that were the case...

As that is the case, it appears that your subsequent conclusions need revision.
things like special relativity and quantum phenomenon would never have been discovered. By this I mean we build tools that allow us to extend our sensibility.

Eyesight direct, telescope, microscope... all are/require 'sensory perception'.
Not anything can ever be demonstrated to exist, unless it is perceived.
No, science as we know it today did not begin before Aristotle.

You need to read more carefully. It was you who threw in the vague and arbitrary "as we know it today" which I deliberately ignored (just because it is undefined, vague, arbitrary) when I said that "science has been around".
That is simply an ignorant claim,
It would have been had I made it.
Nor would it be as easily dismissed without your little presto-chango logical fallacy; 'changing the goalposts'.
Had you quoted me properly, you could not have so easily dismissed and argued.

but am I willing to concede you're talking about a completely difference thing when you say "science." To repeat, modern science (as we know it today) is several steps away from anything Aristotle says. Aristotle referred to ... I forget, blah blah of Meno? as the "first scientist"; but the term "scientist" back then is not the same thing as it is today.
I agree that the "raw science" has nothing to say about the "meaning." The human subject uses reason to complete the picture - this is why I said science and philosophy necessarily overlap. The meaning is a "human" meaning. Science, as a methodology has nothing to say, it is merely applied to some idea, question or problem. Reason is required for both fields, but not exclusive to either.
There is a huge difference between common 'reason' and original critical examination, etc...

Again I'll quote;

"...scientists are condemned by their unexamined assumptions to study the nature of mirrors only by cataloging and investigating everything that mirrors can reflect. It is an endless process that never makes progress, that never reaches closure, that generates endless debate between those who have seen different reflected images, and whose enduring product is voluminous descriptions of particular phenomena." - The Adapted Mind

Philosophers examine assumptions. Many scientists fear philosophers, as one thought of a philosopher can make years of tasty grants and experiments and such obsolete before it begins by refuting an 'unexamined assumption' by scientists.
They don't because they can't.

...from which logic and reason developed the western mind set.
It was the toxic error of Aristotle's refuted 'laws of logic' that has poisoned the 'Western mind' for all these millennia.
"Truth" is "truth" is a tautology. That is what reason has given us.

Call it as you will, it remains Truth.
Truth is not 'falsifiable'.
There is a difference between what 'reason' is, and what (formal) logic is? I think so.
To say such a thing possesses no meaning only the appearance of meaning

There is no 'meaning' inherent in anything; all meaning exists in the thoughts/ego of the beholder!
All 'meaning' is the "appearance of meaning"!
just to be clear I do find use in mysticism as a means of human expression and self exploration.)
Perhaps in an 'intellectual' capacity; Knowledge = experience.
What is "true" is defined by the rules agreed upon. 1+1=2 by the rules of addition using abstract forms we call "numbers."

Only within the specific context of a base ten system, along with other contextual limitations.
Actually, the only way that anything can be either true or false is to severely limit the parameters and ignore all the rest of the Universe!
My disagreement is your assertion that philosophy trumps science because scientists are not interested in philosophy,

You just saved yourself another batch of refutations because I never said that "philosophy trumps science because scientists are not interested in philosophy".
If you are going to put words in my mouth, please stop making me look like an idiot?
I can do that all by myself, thank you! *__-
I did say that they (predominately) are INCAPABLE of philosophy, and, thus, 'fear' it.
That is my experience/Knowledge, that I am sharing.
I would say philosophers and scientists alike are well aware of each others general fields of interests.
Perhaps some.
And in that spirit of agreement, I exit. *__-

Post Reply