What do you think about philosophy?

[pilchardo]

Penfold are you saying that science is relatively no good at establishing the "what" of things, rather the "what can I do with" of things? If that's what you're saying, and it looks like you are, then I agree.

[penfold]

Penfold are you saying that science is relatively no good at establishing the "what" of things, rather the "what can I do with" of things? If that's what you're saying, and it looks like you are, then I agree.

Not sure I would want to commit myself to such a sweeping statement; after all science asks and answers certain kinds of "what" questions. The ATLAS project at CERN is, for example, dedicated to answering the question "what gives rise to mass?" by seeking out the Higgs. As far as I am aware there is no immediate practical application for this project.

In general though I think that the important point is this; for a question to be validly answered by science it has to point to something testable. For something to be testable it has to affect the way the cosmos behaves when examined. So for a proposition to be capable of scientific scrutiny it must be that if the proposition is true the cosmos will behave one way, if the proposition is false the cosmos will behave another way. Thus the statement "ice is less dense than liquid water" can be tested (because if it is true ice will float on water, if false it will sink). Conversely the statement "The cosmos was created by an intelligence" cannot be tested (as no matter how the cosmos behaves it will always remain possible it was designed like that). So, if the question cannot be tested then science does not have to deal with it.

However even that point of view has its problems (eg the role of theory and sciences like geology and astronomy). But this is a really deep discussion and I don't want to derail the thread. Also every time I discuss this online someone who has understood Karl Popper better than me shows up and makes me look like an idiot...

peace

[Ultima22689]

Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

[hackenslash]

Not sure I would want to commit myself to such a sweeping statement; after all science asks and answers certain kinds of "what" questions. The ATLAS project at CERN is, for example, dedicated to answering the question "what gives rise to mass?" by seeking out the Higgs. As far as I am aware there is no immediate practical application for this project.

There is certainly a potential practical application. Depending on what we actually discover about the Higgs mechanism, it may be that it at least opens the door to the possibility of achieving light speed for massive objects. I don't think it incredibly likely that this is possible, but understanding the mechanism behind mass may at least make it a scientifically plausible goal, as opposed to the pipe dream it appears to be now.

[Existentialist]

Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

[Ultima22689]

Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

I wholly agree, philosophy has evolved alongside science throughout human history, I did not mean to make philosophy sound as if it's obsolete.

[hackenslash]

Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

I wholly agree, philosophy has evolved alongside science throughout human history, I did not mean to make philosophy sound as if it's obsolete.

ACtually, I don't agree. Indeed, rarely have I come across such utter drivel, except from the fingers of creastionists. Frankly, this is so wrong, it's almost embarassing, and highlights precisely what I was talking about. It takes a really special kind of idiocy to give this guff any credence, especially when erecting such nonsense on technology that relies on the ridiculously counter-intuitive principles that only paying attention to reality can elucidate.

This is precisely the kind of philosophy I was talking about. The only information it can provide about the real world is the colour of the lint in one's belly-button.

In short, it's horseshit. Philosophy is for the mind. This kind of navel-gazing wingnuttery is for the mindless.

[Ultima22689]

I must admit, I skimmed through it, that's what I get for doing so, now I look like a jackass.

[Ultima22689]

Philosophy IMHO was a precursor to science and in modern times is the practice of debating social structure. It most certainly has it's place in the world and should be valued however it is second to science in regard to trying to answer anything that would require a scientific theory. Science itself is a philosophy however it only addresses things that can be proven or disproven empirically. By it's nature it seeks to disprove itself in order to find a more correct answer and therefore as long as one does their science right, scientific theories can only be questioned/contradicted by further empirical information while the rest of philosophy on the other hand can be disputed at any time by anyone, there is no "philosophy method" so it's much easier to come out with flawed logic than with science and that is why science should always be held higher than philosophy however philosophy is important and we as a civilization should value it.

Technically, I suppose, the words science and philosophy are completely interchangeable, but I think we all know what we mean in everyday usage.  I don't see that philosophy was a precursor to science.  The two subjects evolved simultaneously and on the basis of mutual dependence, but more often than not, philosophy led the way and provided the permissions that were necessary, often in the face of religious authoritarianism, for science to develop.  Philosophy gives itself a freedom that science does not have: the ability to view the world subjectively.  That is, the ability to view the world, the universe as a subjective human brain looking outwards, not from a theoretical position of objectivity that is impossible for anyone to achieve.  Philosophy also seeks to disprove itself, just as much, if not more so than science, and contains many contradictory sub-philosophies, therefore nothing can be 'correct' in philosophy.  Most good scientists are philosophically competent and will studiously avoid claims to 'correctness', except maybe where their funding depends on it, mostly they will revert to describing how internally consistent one model of reality is as compared to another.  Science seeing itself as superior to philosophy is like science seeing itself as superior to politics - it's a politically and philosophically dangerous stance for humanity, and the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression.  I say philosophy is the senior partner in the human study of reality.

Can you point out how many times science has resulted in massive brutality and oppression? Because I can point many, many times when philosophy prevailed over science and caused massive brutality and oppression.

[pilchardo]

Guns don't kill people. People do. Same applies here.

[Ultima22689]

Guns don't kill people. People do. Same applies here.

what?

[pilchardo]

Guns don't kill people. People do. Same applies here.

what?

Now look who's asking questions.

[Ultima22689]

I wanted to tear into Pilchardo but now I can't because he's restricted, I suppose that's a good thing though but I feel all deprived for some reason, oh well. Hopefully the thread continue on as i'm quite curious for Existentialist's response.

[Existentialist]

Can you point out how many times science has resulted in massive brutality and oppression? Because I can point many, many times when philosophy prevailed over science and caused massive brutality and oppression.

Thanks Ultima22689, I didn't say that science has ever resulted in massive brutality and oppression.  I said that

the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression

My choice of words was careful and deliberate.  I think that the people who lived long enough to experience an atom bomb being used against them, or those who died prematurely from military chemical experiments, and others, might legitimately judge that science has prevailed over philosophy.  I wouldn't deny them that experience or their right to make that judgement.  However, from my point of view, the descent into the view that science is superior to philosophy is a denial of the fact that a dominant and potentially brutal philosophy has already taken hold.  That was true in the case of the first use in war of the atomic bomb, and the military chemical experiments on volunteers that I'm thinking of.  It can happen in any kind of society - communist, dictatorship, democracy.

[Ultima22689]

Can you point out how many times science has resulted in massive brutality and oppression? Because I can point many, many times when philosophy prevailed over science and caused massive brutality and oppression.

Thanks Ultima22689, I didn't say that science has ever resulted in massive brutality and oppression.  I said that

the times in history where science has appeared to prevail over philosophy have usually been times of massive brutality and oppression

My choice of words was careful and deliberate.  I think that the people who lived long enough to experience an atom bomb being used against them, or those who died prematurely from military chemical experiments, and others, might legitimately judge that science has prevailed over philosophy.  I wouldn't deny them that experience or their right to make that judgement.  However, from my point of view, the descent into the view that science is superior to philosophy is a denial of the fact that a dominant and potentially brutal philosophy has already taken hold.  That was true in the case of the first use in war of the atomic bomb, and the military chemical experiments on volunteers that I'm thinking of.  It can happen in any kind of society - communist, dictatorship, democracy.

I'm sorry, I was lazy in typing but we know you didn't say that. Anywho, is that really science prevailing over philosophy? Science is a tool that humans used, we use it to create things like the car, helps develop modern medicine and it can make guns, atom bombs, biological weapons.  The people who dropped those bombs or used biological weapons or conducted heinous experiments, do you think their primary thought was "FOR SCIENCE"! When they committed terrible acts? The Nazis experimented on people for a philosophy that they were the master race. The USA dropped it's bomb on Japan under the philosophy they stood for liberty and freedom. Any FOR SCIENCE! notion was fulfilled when they first tested the atomic bomb out in deserts and islands. So how do the above examples show science prevailing over philosophy? IMHO, it sounds like opposing philosophies collided and employed science to act on those philosophies, however misguided they were.