I am not one of them either. I posted this topic to investigate the reasons why a science-devotee would think that philosophy could/should be practised according to the rules, guidelines, and techniques of science. There are some posters (here and elsewhere) who think that subjects that cannot be dealt with by science are simply nonsense, undeserving of serious consideration. I find this attitude difficult to understand, but I am here, open to being educated...
Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
I am not sure that education is what you are going to get, because I think the whole problem boils down to really bad PR, and there is no shortage of people responsible for the awkward ideas. I have actually had people try to explain to me that philosophy evolved out of science; I have no idea where that nonsense came from. The thinking seems to be that science is real because it studies things that are real, whereas philosophy is not real; it is imagination, fantasy, or made-up chit. If one points out that philosophy is necessary, if only to help understand religion, then you have really proven that there is no worth in philosophy because religion is all nonsense -- from the perspective of science guys. If you point out that there is no wisdom in science, so philosophy is necessary, they start spewing statistics, which is the new way to beat the odds and be wise with the help of computer data.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 25th, 2022, 3:28 pmI am not one of them either. I posted this topic to investigate the reasons why a science-devotee would think that philosophy could/should be practised according to the rules, guidelines, and techniques of science. There are some posters (here and elsewhere) who think that subjects that cannot be dealt with by science are simply nonsense, undeserving of serious consideration. I find this attitude difficult to understand, but I am here, open to being educated...
I think that the colleges are at least partially responsible for this nonsense, because many of them do not really teach philosophy. They teach about philosophers and the history of philosophy, and they teach how to argue and debate, but some of them do not even require classes in logic or critical thinking in order to obtain a degree in philosophy. I have spoken to a number of people on forums, who have complained about this. It is also questionable as to what kind of a career a degree in philosophy will prepare you for, which makes it appear that philosophy has little or no worth. This supports the idea that philosophers are a bunch of old guys, who like to argue for no purpose. As much as I disagree with that idea, I have seen too many people on forums exercising their brains without using any sense.
Science guys seem to think that science has all the answers, and the knowledge we get from science is totally trustworthy, but science guys have a serious problem with long-term memory, as they don't seem to have any. If one points out that science has been wrong before, many times before, they just argue that science corrects itself, so it does not matter if it made a mistake. I think this is a problem; because science works so hard testing and repeat testing, its conclusions seem valid. So even if they are dead wrong, no one can prove they are wrong except science, so it corrects its own mistakes and appears to always be in control of the most accurate knowledge. This engenders trust.
Then we have a populace that has become too sophisticated for things like integrity, honesty, nobility and even truth, which is the fundamental bedrock of philosophic thought. Truth has become malleable, innocence is equated with naivete, whereas manipulation and putting a spin on information is considered to be smart, what a winner will use to succeed. It has gotten to the point where truth has little or no value as many can not even recognize it; but winning is easily recognized. Truth is subjective and difficult to prove, winning is obvious. When we stopped respecting philosophy, we devalued truth and opened the door to corruption. Science is the only discipline that regularly proves itself, so it is the only thing that can be trusted, which creates new problems.
Humans need to be able to trust. We need to trust that the sun will come up tomorrow, that our lives will continue with some stability, that our goals are obtainable, and that we can believe in our selves, relationships, etc. But putting our trust in science means believing in science, having faith in science. And what is the most damaging thing to faith? Well, that would be change. Any religious leader can tell you that too much change is detrimental to belief. Religion took a hit when the theory of evolution came into play and it has still not fully recovered. It takes generations to adapt to changes in religion. So if we are going to transfer our trust to science, what is going to happen when science learns new things and changes as it must in order to be science? It looks to me like we are either going to have a crisis of faith, or science is going to have to be limited, stymied, and/or controlled.
So the above are my thoughts on what happened to philosophy and why science is thought to be superior to philosophy. Will this get better? Probably. Eventually, but not until innocence, trust, and truth are restored, and that won't happen until tragedy causes it and requires it to happen. IMO
Gee
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 667
- Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
- Location: Michigan, US
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
Sorry that wasn't what you wanted. I compiled a list of comments that I have read from "science guys".Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 11:15 am I was hoping that the science-only people might explain their rationale. Where are they, I wonder?
If you want a more direct answer, just go to a science forum, explain that science is just a product of philosophy, and the science guys will jump out of the woodwork to prove you wrong.
Gee
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 11:15 am I was hoping that the science-only people might explain their rationale. Where are they, I wonder?
Oops! I didn't mean to be unappreciative. It's just that we already agree, and are likely just to repeat our, er, misapprehensions, so I was sort of hoping that one or two 'science guys' might've appeared to explain their own perspective.Gee wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 3:50 pm Sorry that wasn't what you wanted. I compiled a list of comments that I have read from "science guys".
If you want a more direct answer, just go to a science forum, explain that science is just a product of philosophy, and the science guys will jump out of the woodwork to prove you wrong.
"Who cares, wins"
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8271
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 11:15 am I was hoping that the science-only people might explain their rationale. Where are they, I wonder?
Gee wrote: ↑March 28th, 2022, 3:50 pm Sorry that wasn't what you wanted. I compiled a list of comments that I have read from "science guys".
If you want a more direct answer, just go to a science forum, explain that science is just a product of philosophy, and the science guys will jump out of the woodwork to prove you wrong.
P.S. This topic refers to a historic split, it seems, originating with a disagreement between Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper. We aren't just rehearsing our own stories, we're continuing theirs. I've no idea if this is well-known among philosophers and in philosophy forums?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 29th, 2022, 6:29 am Oops! I didn't mean to be unappreciative. It's just that we already agree, and are likely just to repeat our, er, misapprehensions, so I was sort of hoping that one or two 'science guys' might've appeared to explain their own perspective.
Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolution where he challenged the then dominant philosophical views of science pertaining to progress, rationality, observation, theories, and language.
On the other hand, Karl Popper fervently renounced the “Baconian Method” (Sir Francis Bacon advocated a very empirical, observational, reasoned method that did away with metaphysical conjecture) view of scientific methodology.
Most importantly, hundreds of years before the advent of modern psychology, Bacon understood clearly that the human mind doesn’t always reason correctly, and that any approach to scientific knowledge must start with that understanding.
However, according to Popper only a system of theories that is falsifiable by experience should be accorded genuine scientific status.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: April 11th, 2022, 9:41 pm
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
If you can test it, then it is science.
Not so obvious for philosophy. What exactly is it?
If we look at the classical subdivisions in philosophy:
Epistemology? Logic? Metaphysics? Morality? Ontology?
What could possibly be tested there?
I do not believe that there is particularly much that can be tested experimentally in philosophy.
Maybe some small area in ontology could lend itself to testing, when it concerns the construction of a definition for physically observable things. Otherwise, I don't see much scope for testing there either.
Hence, scientists are, as testers, not particularly well equipped to do philosophy. Their daytime job won't be of much help.
- Maryam
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: April 15th, 2022, 11:30 am
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: April 10th, 2022, 4:44 pm
Re: Applying science to philosophy. Can it work?
Science presumes reality is physical. It can only describe the world as a physical process.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 25th, 2022, 9:58 am
Can the discipline called "philosophy" be practised according to the rules, techniques and guidelines of the discipline called "science"?
Philosophy does not presume only physical explanations count as being real.
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