- #1
ikos9lives
- 41
- 0
That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.
Comment?
Comment?
The word "philosophy" comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom"
ikos9lives said:That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.
ikos9lives said:That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.
Comment?
However, there is reasoning involved in deciding what constitutes a fact and why. Empiricism is a philosophical issue as is positivism, isn't it?wuliheron said:Science is a tool like logic rather than a philosophy.
arkajad said:I would say: science is a method rather than a tool. The scientific method has its own tools, and is developing new tools.
ikos9lives said:However, there is reasoning involved in deciding what constitutes a fact and why. Empiricism is a philosophical issue as is positivism, isn't it?
wuliheron said:Chewing your food can be described as a "method", but in this case the original post referred to "PhD" (piled higher and deeper?) with the implied context being "academic science".
arkajad said:Science is science and academic is academic. There is science without being academic and there are academicians who are nor really scientists. If these two categories somehow got mixed for you, or if you think something was implied - well it often happens that different people view things differently, especially in philosophy, less often, I would say, often in science.
ikos9lives said:That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.
Comment?
wuliheron said:I am neither so you are wasting your time.
arkajad said:I was not arguing with you. I was stressing the fact that academia and science should not be confused.
And they were confused by the original poster.
ikos9lives said:That's why science degrees are called "PhD," which means doctor of philosophy.
Comment?
Pythagorean said:Science assumes a particular Set of philosophies, but is not just a philosophy. Science requires practicality (i.e tangible observations).
Theoretical sciences may have more philosophy to them, by they are still constrained by mathematical observations that come directly from experimentation.
yrreg said:The more substantial question I like to ask someone here who says that you can do science without philosophy, is the following:
- Can there be any intelligent science pursued without any philosophy?
Or more broadly:
- Can any human do anything peculiar only to humans without any kind of intelligent thinking involved, or according to any criteria of intelligent thinking involved?
Yrreg
It depends on what you mean by "intelligent science". Science has its rules--the interaction of theory and experiment. But to make sense of science (i.e. to do more than just get numbers out) one needs a point of view. And even though for most scientists this isn't explicit but implicit, it's still there. I'll use quantum mechanics as an example: there are various interpretations of qm extant, but none are disproved by experiment. (which isn't to say that there might not be experiments to disprove one or another). The only interpretation that has been disproved, by the Aspect experiments violating Bell's Theorem, is the hidden variables interpretation that requires local reality. The majority of physicists take the Copenhagen interpretation, which is an instrumentalist approach (not mine, by the way).yrreg said:The more substantial question I like to ask someone here who says that you can do science without philosophy, is the following:
Or more broadly:
- Can there be any intelligent science pursued without any philosophy?
- Can any human do anything peculiar only to humans without any kind of intelligent thinking involved, or according to any criteria of intelligent thinking involved?
The scientific method is a philosophical construct. You can't prove or measure its existence by science.wuliheron said:As for the first question, that really depends upon what you mean by "intelligent science". Personally, I am more interested in science that produces practical results than anything else.
ikos9lives said:Now you're looking for "practical results". That term can only be understood through philosophy because science cannot tell us what is practical and what is not.
ikos9lives said:The scientific method is a philosophical construct. You can't prove or measure its existence by science.
Now you're looking for "practical results". That term can only be understood through philosophy because science cannot tell us what is practical and what is not.
Science can only look at what "is". And it is limited to that because it is defined philosophically to do so.
You cannot begin science at all without philosophical assumptions. You can't interpret results without a philosophical basis either.
yrreg said:And the quest for artificial intelligence according to what I believe is an intelligent conjecture is doomed to failure.
It might be best for you to question the specific assertions that I offered. What point did you disagree with?wuliheron said:Without providing any rationale or other evidence to support your assertions you might as well be trying to sell me a used car.
ikos9lives said:It might be best for you to question the specific assertions that I offered. What point did you disagree with?
wuliheron said:Third, the idea that you can't use a method to prove it's validity is a vague assertion.
arkajad said:That means that may well imply that we cannot use philosophy to justify philosophy. So, what shall we use? Scientific method? If so, then philosophy fails.
wuliheron said:Personally, I'm more interested in what appears to be useful than in proving anything and that includes not least of all whatever you care to call philosophy and science.
arkajad said:Useful for whom, useful for what? What is useful and in which sense is a deep philosophical question? What can be useful for you, may be harmful for other people. What is useful for human beings in general? Who knows? Different people, scientists, politicians, have different ideas in this respect. Is it useful to reduce the population of the planet? Or is it harmful? You can't escape philosophy!
wuliheron said:Nature is demonstrably the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not useful
arkajad said:Useful for whom?
arkajad said:Are you going to help nature? Help with what? Nature creates and nature destroys. Which of these two activities you want to be helping?
No, science and philosophy are two distinct disciplines. While both involve seeking knowledge and understanding of the world, science focuses on empirical evidence and experimentation, while philosophy relies on logic and reasoning.
The relationship between science and philosophy is complex and has evolved over time. In the past, science was considered a branch of philosophy, but as scientific methods and theories became more advanced, it became its own discipline. However, philosophy still plays a role in shaping the principles and ethics of scientific research.
Yes, science and philosophy can work together to enhance our understanding of the world. Philosophical ideas can inspire scientific research, and scientific discoveries can inform philosophical debates. For example, the field of bioethics combines both disciplines to address ethical issues in medicine and technology.
Science is based on empirical evidence and uses the scientific method to test hypotheses and theories. Philosophy, on the other hand, relies on logic and reasoning to explore concepts such as truth, knowledge, and existence. Science is more concerned with practical applications and tangible results, while philosophy is more abstract and theoretical.
While science can provide evidence and insights that may help answer philosophical questions, it cannot fully answer them. Philosophy deals with abstract concepts and questions that may not be testable or measurable through scientific methods. Science and philosophy both have their own unique approaches to understanding the world, and they complement each other rather than being in direct competition.