what’s the relationship between science and philosophy?
"Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don’t know. " - Bertrand Russell
Whats the difference between Existence and Subsistence… it is but a diagnostic/charateristic of abstract Being. Let Existence be Philosophy and subsistence Science and the fact that this cannot be a derivative but a source is the actuality.
Science deals mostly with the directly observable; dealing with objective reality,modality and extrinsicality and philosophy lamely put i would deem it to encompass all… the inherence…
Science is theoretically a subset of philosophy. Institutionally, philosophy is a subset of science.
Make up your own mind about that.
but but but
Philosophy has never forced science to change, atleast to large degrees. Break throughs in science has cause philosophy to change, such as Galileo’s experiments or the discovery of quantum physics or E=mc^2.
But but: Philosophy has given birth to nearly all western sciences: physics, mathematics, political science and economics from the Greeks, social sciences and psychology after the Enlightenment. History, if it is classified as science, is the only science I can think of which could have started off independent of philosophical thought.
I don’t know much history, but I know that science emanated from philosophy. And perhaps things that were once philosophical, are now scientific. (Although I would object to science’s trying to encompass psychology and consciousness)
I would say in essence, science is a systemized application of reason. For example, reason says if you want to know the truth about something, and you can test it, then test it. Reason says that if you get the same result multiple times, it’s a rule. etc. I would say reason is a large part of philosophy. Not all reason is philosophy (I suppose), so I’m ot sure what it is that makes that reasoning philosophy, but it seems philosophical. perhaps because it concerns inquisition into the nature of things.
i think it would ideally be better if scientists tried to allow philosophy to encompass it, because they would have to think more abstractly about certain scientific issues, which could result in clearing up certain confusions. it might even change the scientific method and make it less rigid and more dynamic, more reaching. but those things are in the more-or-less distant future.
Can philosophy encompass science? Dewey thought so as do most philosophers of consciousness after 1970. After all, philosophy engendered science. See my agrument in “The 5th Paradigm”.
The role of science is to constantly seek out a more useful description of reality, which it has done a decent job at over the past hundred years or so. Although, there are many individual scientists who have been deluded by the thought process into proclaiming that they have discovered fundamental truths about our existence. (i.e. that they know God)
The role of religion is to try to help people understand that no matter how closely the ideas of science (or man in general) appear to match reality, there is still far more for us to learn than we could ever begin to comprehend. (i.e. God is beyond ALL understanding). In my opinion, religion has not done a very good job in its role.
The problem, in each case, stems from the basic fact that our thought process has evolved in such a way that it is able to make us feel much smarter than we actually are. Just take a look at our ancestors. They believed very strongly in many ideas that look quite naïve to us today. In the future, our ideas from today will look just as naïve.
You can also see the “illusion of intelligence†created by the thought process by observing children. Anyone who has kids has undoubtedly heard the phrase “I should be allowed to make my own decisions!†Kids say this because they believe it. They believe that they have a sound understanding of life because the thought process makes them feel as though they do.
In general, the thought process is so good at what it does that it constantly fools man into thinking that his ideas are much more sophisticated that they actually are. So people from both science and religion are easily fooled into thinking that their ideas represent “The Truth†about our existence. Thus the need for philosophy.
The role of philosophy is actually quite simple. Philosophy is supposed to kick religion and/or science in the butt whenever they aren’t doing their job. Philosophy’s job is to counteract the false sense of intelligence created by the thought process by constantly asking questions that science and religion cannot answer with their supposed “truthsâ€.
Science is a branch of philosophy.
Any time you’re asking “what is” or “what should be” you’re doing philosophy. Science is the “what is” department of philosophy. All sound philosophy should take the products of science and build from there - making certain the other branches are consistent with the most current scientific findings. In this way, science is the fact-finding tool of philosophy.
Yes but philosophy is the umbrella - science is its fact-finding tool. It’s like saying that the headlights on my car caused me to change course. I’m still the driver - and I’m using the headlights to my benefit.
Philosophy and science co-exist quite well together, if one is open to that perception.
Without philosophy, science has an entirely limited scope. Scientific principles must be endowed with the ability to aid in the process of philosophical examination. If philosophy and science do not co-exist, it is rather difficult to broaden horizons within a given scientific feild.
Philosophical questions are questions that are unanswerable but also deal with “the entire pile of sand, rather then each individual grain” but deals with the pile in a methodical process, divided into sub-piles.
Science deals with individual grains.
If a sceintist develops an hypothesis, I think it is quite important that they aply this to philosophical examinations. For instance, a behavioral pattern is pre-determined by genetic factors that function through a darwinian selection in the persons environment. Now, if this were CONCLUSIVELY true, it would have vast implications in all realms of thought. But the fact that such things exist, and are backed but a lot of evidence give rise to the entirely philosophical question: what does that mean?
Suddenly one is hit with moral implications, political implications, etc, etc.
Philosophy and science must coexist to determine a general expanstion on a scientific hypothesis and the validity of that judged in the form of logic.
I believe that Philosophy without Science is irrelevant.
For as long I can remember, philosophy has been pulling the strings. Just the other day I had a dream, where an eerie voice whispered in my ear that “sciences are always in plural and address the particular, while Philosophy is singular and it addresses everything”. Or, if you like, Everything.
Have you seen Scorsese’s The Departed ? Try and substitute Jack Nicholson with philosophy and Elle Street/Boston/The environment with science.
What was that first line, again ?..
Oh yeah: “I don’t wanna be a product of my environment; I want my environment to be a product of me…”