What is the differences between philosophy and science?
Posted: December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am
What is the differences between philosophy and science?
Philosophy for Philosophers
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15260
Initially, not much. Over time, science blossomed beyond philosophy.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.growthhormone wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am What is the differences between philosophy and science?
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.Namelesss wrote: ↑January 13th, 2018, 6:44 pmPhilosophy is predominately original critical examination/thoughts, and every other means of Knowing.growthhormone wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 1:59 am What is the differences between philosophy and science?
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 wrote: ↑January 14th, 2018, 12:50 amI cannot see how that makes sense.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).
Phenomenon are discovered by scientific investigation.
No philosopher dreamed up the double-slit experiment,
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.Philosophy began with the analysis of language and science began with the application of theory as a causal tool.
Science and philosophy began long before Aristotle.Modern day "science" began long after Aristotle.
It is according to the dictionary, observe;Burning ghost wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 1:45 am 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.
No, science as we know it today did not begin before Aristotle.
It would have been had I made it.That is simply an ignorant claim,
There is a huge difference between common 'reason' and original critical examination, etc...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.
It was the toxic error of Aristotle's refuted 'laws of logic' that has poisoned the 'Western mind' for all these millennia....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
Perhaps in an 'intellectual' capacity; Knowledge = experience.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."
My disagreement is your assertion that philosophy trumps science because scientists are not interested in philosophy,
Perhaps some.I would say philosophers and scientists alike are well aware of each others general fields of interests.