Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
- SweetSorrowBitter
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: February 27th, 2021, 9:52 am
Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
Is this really the only function of philosophy ? Aren't possibilities explored much better in philosophy or can that be done in theoretical sciences (i.e theoretical physics and biology etc)
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
A couple of problems here. First, I guess that by "science" you mean natural science in general, including physics and biology. But science, as systematized knowledge in general, is not directly opposed or distinct from philosophy. There's a philosophical base in every science, specially in the form of epistemology, but also as ontology.SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 10:23 am > Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
Is this really the only function of philosophy ? Aren't possibilities explored much better in philosophy or can that be done in theoretical sciences (i.e theoretical physics and biology etc)
What we should do is of interest to moral theory, but philosophy is not reduced to that alone.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
That's not a definition of either; it's just a pithy observation about one aspect of each.SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 10:23 am > Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
Science encompasses much more than technology - which is roughly the "doing" part of what we learn about the physical world and how it works. Philosophy contains more human aspects of human thought than ethics - which is the "should" part of what we learn about our interface with the world.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
Hi SweetSorrowBitter. Yes, science, as a method of creating descriptive and predictive theories based on observation and inductive reasoning, tells us what we can do. But ethics is a discussion of what various people think we should do. Philosophy isn't identically equal to ethics.SweetSorrowBitter wrote:Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 10:23 am > Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
Is this really the only function of philosophy ? Aren't possibilities explored much better in philosophy or can that be done in theoretical sciences (i.e theoretical physics and biology etc)
Hi SweetSorrowBitter, I have long thought of philosophy as the 'parent' discipline; science is a tool that came out of certain schools of philosophy, generally known as 'analytic philosophy'. Philosophy is a swiss army knife, while science is a stilletto. The former is a general-purpose tool, doing lots of jobs pretty well, while science is optimised for a smaller group of problems, to the extent that its performance vastly exceeds that of philosophy, but only in the problem areas for which it is optimal and optimised. Science began as part of philosophy, and can still be seen that way, if you wish, but it left home long ago, and has set itself up with an independent existence.
Science sort of cherry-picked philosophy, and selected the easier problems to specialise in. The sort of problem that can be solved by the gathering of evidence, analysis of that evidence, and logically reaching a solution (conclusion). That's the scientific method, described in the most general terms.
Philosophy is quite capable of addressing the problems that science concentrates on, but it isn't generally as good at it: science is heavily optimised for these problems. Instead, philosophy these days concentrates on the problem areras that science simply cannot address. These problems are mainly distinguished by insufficient data to reach a logical conclusion, sometimes no evidence at all, as in some areas of metaphysics. Some problems that deal with human doings have evidence, but not of a sort or standard that science can deal with. Subjective accounts and reports are a poor substitute (in scientific eyes) for direct physical measurements.
So science and philosophy are related, but also separate. They could certainly be seen as complementary; I see them so.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
In this vein, here's an article about 'science' based on "zero empirical evidence".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 28th, 2021, 9:52 am Philosophy these days concentrates on the problem areras that science simply cannot address. These problems are mainly distinguished by insufficient data to reach a logical conclusion, sometimes no evidence at all, as in some areas of metaphysics. Some problems that deal with human doings have evidence, but not of a sort or standard that science can deal with. Subjective accounts and reports are a poor substitute (in scientific eyes) for direct physical measurements.
"Who cares, wins"
- WarrenZ
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: February 25th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
This to some extent is correct, in that Science focuses more on the pragmatic side of the affair, but ultimately we have to take responsibility upon ourselves and decide what we should do. However, I think many have noted already, that the statement about Philosophy is mainly limited to Morals, which is by no means all there is. Also, Science and Philosophy are not as isolated as the statement may suggest. In that many discoveries in science affect philosophical stances (for example, Kant's First Critique was conducted under the background of Newtonian Physics), and some Philosophy of Science may help scientists clarify there method (Falsification comes to mind, and also philosophers working on Quantum Physics).SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 10:23 am > Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
I like your take on the issue and the article that you linked, too. I think that philosophy is a search for wisdom (applied knowledge), while science is a search for raw knowledge. The knowledge itself doesn't carry any baggage about how it should be applied. Science requires no judgement from the scientist other than an attempt at objectivity, a judgement of truth. There is no objective basis for morals or ethics, so science has nothing to say about these subjects. You might then say that it's all BS, and therefore that philosophy is all BS, but I see it as desperately important. It is important to try to understand objective facts about the world (though I argue we never know for sure when we have these in hand). But, our subjective experience in the world is only partly affected by these facts of the world. More impactful I think, is our attitude about ourselves and others, our rules by which we try to create a sense of justice, tranquility, self-respect, happiness and such.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 28th, 2021, 10:11 amIn this vein, here's an article about 'science' based on "zero empirical evidence".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑February 28th, 2021, 9:52 am Philosophy these days concentrates on the problem areras that science simply cannot address. These problems are mainly distinguished by insufficient data to reach a logical conclusion, sometimes no evidence at all, as in some areas of metaphysics. Some problems that deal with human doings have evidence, but not of a sort or standard that science can deal with. Subjective accounts and reports are a poor substitute (in scientific eyes) for direct physical measurements.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
That quote limits both of the "fields".SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 10:23 am > Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
Is this really the only function of philosophy ? Aren't possibilities explored much better in philosophy or can that be done in theoretical sciences (i.e theoretical physics and biology etc)
First of all Science started as a Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) with already having a set of empirical methodologies of investigation.
Science always was and still is a fundamental step in all our Philosophical Endeavors. Aristotle defined that set of steps which were the main reason behind the run away success of our epistemology during the Scientific Revolution(to this day).(1.Epistemology 2.Science 3. Metaphysics etc).
Natural Philosophy (science) was never philosophically empty. After all both Philosophy and Science attempt to expand our understanding (by producing knowledge and wisdom) through constructing Theoretical Frameworks. This is why we have Scientific Theories and Philosophical Theories.
Science is the process of producing objective data and doing philosophy based on those data.
Philosophy also takes place when we don't have available objective data. In essence we reflect on subjective ideas (i.e.why we should do) without being able to verify our conclusions.
We need to understand that only through science we can feed our Philosophy (within a Scientific field or Academic Philosophy) with facts so that we can arrive to a credible conclusion.
There are many examples where Philosophy let us to the wrong path and science helped us to get back on track. (racial and sexual discrimination, the impact of meat eating on the planet and the well being of sentient beings, the rejection of Supernaturalism, Evidentialism etc)
I find it really difficult and meaningless to separate those two intellectual endeavors. They are interconnected and supportive to each other.
We can only distinguish them as different Academic Establishments and as different ways to do metaphysics. What I mean by that is that science may produce hypothetical frameworks but it doesn't accept as part of its epistemology , while Philosophy accepts them as different "Philosophical theories".
So the standards of evaluation in Academic Philosophy are way too low, allowing the coexistence of unfounded theoretical frameworks based on conflicting Philosophical Principles. Science applies the highest standards on its frameworks and all its philosophical interpretations are based on a single set of principles,those of Methodological Naturalism.
We need to know things before we try to answer any question. Without knowledge our answers can never be wise. Wisdom (expand our understanding) is the sole goal of Philosophy and knowledge(science) is the catalyst.
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
I think physicalist science could probably, in principle, fully describe and explain the world, if no conscious subjects existed.SweetSorrowBitter wrote: ↑February 27th, 2021, 10:23 am > Science tells us what we can do and philosophy tells us what we should do.
Is this really the only function of philosophy ? Aren't possibilities explored much better in philosophy or can that be done in theoretical sciences (i.e theoretical physics and biology etc)
When conscious subjects are introduced, we see the need for different types of ways of fully describing the world. Issues of value, purpose, meaning, wellbeing, mattering arise. And so notions of morality, for instance, become relevant. So I'd say that philosophy can cover topics relevant to subjects, in ways which science can't. I'm not sure if that's limited to morality. It might even turn out that consciousness is fundamental to existence in some way that scientific physicalism can't encompass, for example.
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
-First of all there isn't such a thing as "physicalist Science". Science is based on non metaphysical worldviews like Physicalism. IT is based on the epistemic Acknowledgements made by Methodological Naturalism.I think physicalist science could probably, in principle, fully describe and explain the world, if no conscious subjects existed.
Second important point, there can not be Science without conscious thinking agents. Whether we can fully describe the world is irrelevant to the subjective nature of our conscious states. There are bigger problems that keep us from describing every single mechanism in nature.
-Different types of ways...independent of science? Types outside science DO NOT describe the world. They speculate about it due to posses an objective empirical methodology to investigate and describe the involved causal mechanisms.When conscious subjects are introduced, we see the need for different types of ways of fully describing the world.
-Ok now I get your point.Issues of value, purpose, meaning, wellbeing, mattering arise. And so notions of morality, for instance, become relevant. So I'd say that philosophy can cover topics relevant to subjects, in ways which science can't. I'm not sure if that's limited to morality.
You say that Philosophy can cover matters of meaning and value while science has nothing to say about them.
First of all you are ignoring that Science is a Philosophical category (Natural Philosophy) with a set of empirical methodologies.
Second more important point is that Aristotle , thousand of years ago, pointed out that we can not do Philosophy without science. His six Important steps were the sole cause behind the Scientific revolution and Europe's Enlightment. (1.Epistemology 2.Science (Physika) 3.Metaphysics etc etc).
That said we need to understand that Social Sciences, psychology and neuroscience have offered a high quality epistemology to Philosophy in order to understand the subjective approach of different people on Meaning and Value!
Knowledge is the basis for any claim that "wants" to become wise. Whether we use philosophy within a scientific field or in independent Academic Philosophy, our principles of Methodological Naturalism don't and shouldn't change, if of course we are interested in expanding our understanding..not just making up answers.
-This statement is a bit ambiguous. Consciousness means to be aware of things that exist. We are not aware of things they don't...and if we are, there are institutions designed to help us with that. This is the fundamental mind property of "consciousness" and it has a fundamental role on sustaining our existence.-"It might even turn out that consciousness is fundamental to existence in some way that scientific physicalism can't encompass, for example."
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
Yes I'm talking about the physicalist scientific model of the world, the stuff it's made from and how it works (physical processes). So not social sciences for example.
Modern philosophy should be informed by that of course, but it's not great at addressing the qualiative aspects of subjective existence, so far at least. From the mind-body relationship to morality. And of course major philosophical areas like epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics, free will, theology come into play with the advent of conscious subjects.
That's the significant divide I was talking about. There's a paradigmatic shift between a universe of dead rocks interacting according to physical forces, and a universe containing conscious subjects. New types of qualiative characteristics come into being which have to be described in different ways, and raise different types of questions. Such as Oughts.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
NickGaspar wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 7:34 pm Social Sciences, psychology and neuroscience have offered a high quality epistemology to Philosophy in order to understand the subjective approach of different people on Meaning and Value!
It seems, from the quote below, that epistemology has always been a fundamental component of philosophy, maybe back to the days before science had been invented, and separated out from philosophy, its parent discipline. There is no mention of an epistemological contribution from science of any sort. Of course, that doesn't mean it's true; Wikipedia is not an authority, just a useful (and usually accurate) reference. I cannot see how this discipline of philosophy owes anything to science, as it seems that epistemology might actually pre-date science. Philosophy came first; of that much I am certain.
Wikipedia wrote:Epistemology; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Link to Wikipedia entry
"Who cares, wins"
- NickGaspar
- Posts: 656
- Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Many
Re: Is this quote true about what science is and what philosophy is ?
Let me explain this one.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 15th, 2021, 10:51 amNickGaspar wrote: ↑March 14th, 2021, 7:34 pm Social Sciences, psychology and neuroscience have offered a high quality epistemology to Philosophy in order to understand the subjective approach of different people on Meaning and Value!
It seems, from the quote below, that epistemology has always been a fundamental component of philosophy, maybe back to the days before science had been invented, and separated out from philosophy, its parent discipline. There is no mention of an epistemological contribution from science of any sort. Of course, that doesn't mean it's true; Wikipedia is not an authority, just a useful (and usually accurate) reference. I cannot see how this discipline of philosophy owes anything to science, as it seems that epistemology might actually pre-date science. Philosophy came first; of that much I am certain.
Wikipedia wrote:Epistemology; from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē 'knowledge', and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered one of the four main branches of philosophy, along with ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Link to Wikipedia entry
Epistemology is a Philosophical Branch. It studies the nature, sources, origin, and limits of our Knowledge.
Now Science is a Philosophical Category with "a build in" set of empirical methodologies capable to produce and evaluate knowledge claims. In sort science is just one more source of knowledge for us humans. (science=scientia=Knowledge)
So by definition, science has a major contributory role in our Epistemology. In fact science is the most credible source of our epistemology due to its high objective standards of evaluation.
So Empistemology has always being a fundamental branch/field of study of Philosophy since our goal is to understand the world through objective frameworks. Science on the other hand, due to its ability to evaluate accepted epistemic claims and produce new ones has a Fundamental role in all our Philosophical endeavors.
Without credible epistemology we can not guarantee the wisdom in our conclusions and this is what philosophy is all about:Use knowledge in order to produce
claims about our world in our effort to expand ourwise
(Philosophia=Love of wisdom).understanding.
Now Science has being a source for our epistemology as long as Greek Philosophy exists. We have historical sources on empirical methodologies used in the ancient times. I will suggest the work and talks by Richard Carrier(Historian) on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM_mXZaf8e4
But even if science was born during the scientific revolution (only ~500 years ago) that doesnt' change the fact that our epistemology have being shaped by our scientific methods. We rejected old knowledge claims and we are still adding more epistemic frameworks than before with the same high standards for every single one!
-I am not sure why you want Wikipedia or any other page to "mention" the epistemic role of science!? Science as I said is just one out of many methods of acquiring knowledge in this world. Why should this article focus only on the role of science? The Branch of Epistemology includes all claims that are empirically and objectively verified, even outside the systematic method of science.-There is no mention of an epistemological contribution from science of any sort. Of course, that doesn't mean it's true; Wikipedia is not an authority,
Well if you really want to understand the role of science in epistemology I would suggest watching an academic course on Philosophy of Science. Philosophy of science is also known as "the epistemology on knowledge".
-
" I cannot see how this discipline of philosophy owes anything to science, as it seems that epistemology might actually pre-date science.
-I can not really understand these objections!!!Philosophy needs credible objective data in order for our conclusions to have any philosophical value(wisdom). Science can guarantee the credibly of our knowledge claims.(in relation to our current limitations). Whether a philosophical branch pre-dates science is irrelevant! Our epistemology (our body of knowledge claims) was improved drastically by being empirically verified or falsified by science. I don't understand why the timeline of Philosophy is so important for you? This is why we no longer believe what people believed in the BC era! We improved the ways we evaluate knowledge claims. We improve our Epistemology by "inventing" science and new methods.
-"Philosophy came first; of that much I am certain."
-Well that is not true. Before we were able to make any serious philosophical reflections, people observed and understood the world and its rules by observing and testing their environment. We can see that in kids today.Before constructing any philosophical framework , some kind of empirical feedback is essential. We are empirical beings.
So first we were "scientists". When our societies and concepts evolved we produced Philosophers and this is when we experienced a huge delay in our evolution of knowledge.(supernaturalism,idealism etc). The scientists in our societies helped us get back on track by improving our methods of empirical investigation, enabling the run away success of Natural Philosophy in Epistemology(Scientific revolution). They provided the right data so our Philosophers could produce Wise claims(Philosophical frameworks).
You can not have philosophy without science and Science without philosophy at least if your goal is to reflect on complex and difficult aspects of reality.
Even our metaphysical hypotheses need an credible epistemic base in order for our conclusions to be Philosophical.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023