He was an atheist too.
But he never said to keep philosophy separate from science.
He was an atheist too.
I think it is stretching language to say that it "happens in humans". It can happen in a test tube in a laboratory. But I'm pretty sure no test tube existed 2020 year ago, and neither did the science.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 12:09 pmHave you not heard of parthenogenesis? According to Wikipedia, it occurs in all kinds of creatures, including humans.
Blwyddyn Newydd Dda!
By using established scientific facts to decide which philosophical views are valid and which aren't. We throw out the refuted views. Any by using philosophical insights to properly understand what the nature of scientific facts is anyway, how to properly handle them. We continue this process, until all the important scientific facts and all our philosophical insights are aligned, and form a coherent, consistent worldview.Fanman wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 12:08 pm Atla,
This doesn’t make clear to me what you initially said, but if you don’t want to expound, that’s fine. I was just interested in how science and philosophy could be combined. As in, what role could philosophy play in science?Ignorance is bliss for most people, lacking the ability to combine science and philosophy may be a lucky personality trait for most people.
Good point, let's start with throwing out all science that isn't based on the 4 elements
Fanman there is a danger in giving science too much credit as well. It must be remembered that scientific doctrine changes all the time. And it often is dictated by what popular scientific groups endorse, which is a fallacy of argumentum populum. Just because a number of scientists agree on something does not make it right. They are the blind leading the blind just like any other group.Fanman wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 2:34 am h_k_s,
I agree with this sentiment. Philosophy requires an open-mind, religion requires giving up on your autonomy, and science requires the following of a strict, proven method.Remember though, as Bertrand Russell said, you must always keep philosophy, religion, and science separated.
Intrinsically, they function in different ways, which also seem to contradict each other in various ways. If you try to combine them, they cannot be facilitated in a way that will get the best or right results.
Science is natural philosophy. Empiricism upon which ALL science is based is philosophical.
I'll copy the part where I addressed this (I know it's difficult to read more than the first sentence of a comment):
And by using philosophical insights to properly understand what the nature of scientific facts is anyway, how to properly handle them.
You have a valid point in terms of the herd mentality. But genuine science relies on empirical facts. We can get no better than that as a basis for philosophical enquiry. Thanks to science we have a vaccine for covid-19. No matter how much philosophy or religion brings to the table, science leads the way, in terms of efficacy for our species.@Fanman there is a danger in giving science too much credit as well. It must be remembered that scientific doctrine changes all the time. And it often is dictated by what popular scientific groups endorse, which is a fallacy of argumentum populum. Just because a number of scientists agree on something does not make it right. They are the blind leading the blind just like any other group.
I think it depends on the mind of the person doing the philosophy. For every Aristotle there is an [insert bad philosopher].Philosophy then is the only activity that can be trusted. It is an overseer of both science and religion.
FIne.
Yes, because it's too difficult for you to understand that science can refute some ideas, for example: that the world is made of 4 elements, or that the Earth is the centre of the universe, or the existence of the abstract objects of platonism, or naive realism etc. etc. etc.
It was science that gave us the four elements.Atla wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 5:17 pmYes, because it's too difficult for you to understand that science can refute some ideas, for example: that the world is made of 4 elements, or that the Earth is the centre of the universe, or the existence of the abstract objects of platonism, or naive realism etc. etc. etc.
What is meant by 'science' today roughly started with Galileo, and then advanced for 400 years. I know these things are difficult.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 5:19 pmIt was science that gave us the four elements.Atla wrote: ↑December 26th, 2020, 5:17 pm
Yes, because it's too difficult for you to understand that science can refute some ideas, for example: that the world is made of 4 elements, or that the Earth is the centre of the universe, or the existence of the abstract objects of platonism, or naive realism etc. etc. etc.
And that the earth was the centre of the universe
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