Is Science just a branch of Philosophy?

[arkajad]

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.

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]

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!

Nature is demonstrably the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not useful no matter what abstract reasoning you might care to devise on the subject. Most importantly this includes anything that promotes the survival of the individual and species. If these are not met, then the entire argument is moot.

 

[arkajad]

Nature is demonstrably the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not useful

Useful for whom? Are you going to help nature? Help with what? Nature creates and nature destroys. Which of these two activities you want to be helping?

 

[wuliheron]

Useful for whom?

As I already said, useful for the survival of the individual and species. In my case, that just happens to be myself and the human race.

Are you going to help nature? Help with what? Nature creates and nature destroys. Which of these two activities you want to be helping?

I am a part of nature and, so, have no alternative but to help her. As for creation and destruction, those are relative terms and meaningless outside specific contexts.

 

[arkajad]

But what if your survival requires killing other people - and we see a lot of such reasoning in the world around us. Which one of the two "useful" things will you choose: your survival or survival of others?

You seem to think that all is simple and "usefulness" answers all all the problems. But it is only your illusion, that is so nice to hold to.

 

[wuliheron]

But what if your survival requires killing other people - and we see a lot of such reasoning in the world around us. Which one of the two "useful" things will you choose: your survival or survival of others?

You seem to think that all is simple and "usefulness" answers all all the problems. But it is only your illusion, that is so nice to hold to.

I would say the illusion is believing you can make sweeping predictions about what you will do in novel situations you have never been confronted with.

 

[arkajad]

I would say the illusion is believing you can make sweeping predictions about what you will do in novel situations you have never been confronted with.

I do not have such illusions. Do you? Nevertheless you can't escape the dilemmas of what "useful" is and for whom. Therefore the usefulness criterion is not that useful.

 

[wuliheron]

I do not have such illusions. Do you? Nevertheless you can't escape the dilemmas of what "useful" is and for whom. Therefore the usefulness criterion is not that useful.

I don't see any dilemma and thus far all you have done is make insinuations.

 

[ikos9lives]

Unfortunately I am not a mind reader so there is little for me to respond with since you refuse to explain your assertions. At best I can clarify what remains a mystery to me.

Ok, there's a lot here to deal with so I'll just do a little at a time.

First off, the "scientific method" in and of itself is hotly debated to this day so I have only a vague idea of what you are talking about.

Second, if it is a method then it is a method and not merely a "philosophical construct" (whatever that is). No doubt we could assert that anything and everything is a philosophical construct, but that seems rather counter-productive in the context of the present thread.

Philosophy is an attempt to offer rationally consistent arguments (reasoning) about reality.

When we reduce all the results of reasoned arguments to their origin, we have philosophy as the foundation.

In so doing, we don't reduce everything and anything to philosophy.

There are many things which are not the result of philosophy (although that is a philosophical statement). Rocks, trees, human experience, observation -- these are objects and events. When we reason about those events to explain, categorize, contrast and compare them -- then that is first a philosophical exercise.

The rules of science are not an output of science, but of philosophy. We use the philosophical term "methodological naturalism" to define the rules.

Third, the idea that you can't use a method to prove it's validity is a vague assertion. I might assert that the best way to tighten a screw is to turn it clockwise, and then proceed to prove the validity of the statement by actually turning the screw clockwise. At some point all such assertions can only ultimately be tested by demonstrating their efficacy.

I don't follow that so I'll have to return later.

Forth, the word "practical" has widely know definitions that don't require philosophy to be understood. Again, we could assert that anything and everything is philosophical, but such an assertion is demonstrably meaningless in the context of the present thread.

Two points -- the definition of the word didn't just appear in nature. Secondly, it's not the definition but the application of the word.

Is abortion practical? Science cannot tell us. Nor can the dictionary.

Fifth, "science" is a word like any other word and has clear dictionary definitions. To claim that every word in the dictionary has some sort of philosophical definition is, again, a meaningless statement, if for no other reason then that the word "philosophical" itself is a word found in the dictionary. You might as well claim that the definition of every word is somehow "spiritual" for all the meaning such an assertion conveys.

We can look at science. Everything that science studies is matter or the properties of matter. But that doesn't render everything that science does as meaningless.

 

[wuliheron]

Philosophy is an attempt to offer rationally consistent arguments (reasoning) about reality.

When we reduce all the results of reasoned arguments to their origin, we have philosophy as the foundation.

In so doing, we don't reduce everything and anything to philosophy.

There are many things which are not the result of philosophy (although that is a philosophical statement). Rocks, trees, human experience, observation -- these are objects and events. When we reason about those events to explain, categorize, contrast and compare them -- then that is first a philosophical exercise.

OK, this is similar to the dictionary definition of philosophy but goes a bit beyond:

Philosophy
— n , pl -phies
1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

Note that none of these definitions are nearly as broad as yours. Philosophy is not commonly thought of as including any and all reasoning involving comparing and contrasting things. In fact, that is closer to the definition of reasoning itself:

Reason
–noun
1.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.
sound judgment; good sense.
5.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6.
Logic . a premise of an argument.

The rules of science are not an output of science, but of philosophy. We use the philosophical term "methodological naturalism" to define the rules.

While I agree that philosophy plays a major role in helping to shape and clarify the sciences I don't agree that every bit of reasoning people make is by definition philosophical and this includes some of the basic reasoning behind the modern sciences. If a child happens to note that feathers fall slower than most objects and comes to the conclusion that it has to do with the air, this act is neither philosophical nor scientific. It is merely an bit of simple observation and reasoning.

Likewise I would say much of what shapes the sciences besides philosophy is even unreasoning. For example, politics, market forces, and countless other things influence the development of the sciences every day. As a Pragmatist myself I believe the usefulness of any science or philosophy plays a major role in its development and long term survival.

Two points -- the definition of the word didn't just appear in nature. Secondly, it's not the definition but the application of the word.

Dictionaries are, by definition, collections of the commonly used meanings of words. These change constantly and rather naturally. There is no single person or group that decides the definitions of words or that imposes rules upon the masses as to how to decide the meaning of words.

As for their application, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Thus the vast majority of words have multiple definitions and the exact meaning in any given sentence can be construed by the context even if it cannot be found in the dictionary. For example, the meaning of "He's as dumb as doorknob" can be construed even by someone who doesn't know the expression because of the context and the fact that no one is actually as dumb as a doorknob.

Is abortion practical? Science cannot tell us. Nor can the dictionary.

We can look at science. Everything that science studies is matter or the properties of matter. But that doesn't render everything that science does as meaningless.

I already posted the definition of science. If you want to believe science is something other than its commonly used definitions that is fine by me, but my point here is that if we don't at least accept the common definitions of terms we have no common ground upon which to begin communicating more than grunts and groans. Asking if science can tell us if abortion is practical is a non sequitur. Again, if words only have meaning in specific contexts then such sweeping statements without any specific context cannot be assessed.

 

[alt]

As I already said, useful for the survival of the individual and species. In my case, that just happens to be myself and the human race.



I am a part of nature and, so, have no alternative but to help her. As for creation and destruction, those are relative terms and meaningless outside specific contexts.

Isn't 'helping her' (nature) a relative term as well, then ?

 

[wuliheron]

Isn't 'helping her' (nature) a relative term as well, then ?

Exactly, all terms can be considered relative. There meaning therefore depends upon the context which, in this case, was "helping nature create and destroy". I suppose some might argue that they can astral project and avoid nature altogether, but that's a stretch IMO.

 

[ikos9lives]

OK, this is similar to the dictionary definition of philosophy but goes a bit beyond:

Philosophy
— n , pl -phies
1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

Note that none of these definitions are nearly as broad as yours. Philosophy is not commonly thought of as including any and all reasoning involving comparing and contrasting things. In fact, that is closer to the definition of reasoning itself:

Ok, I disagree. Let's look at definition #5.

5. any system of belief, values, or tenets

My definition was narrower than that. I said that philosophy was a system of reasoning about reality.

With the dictionary definition you provided, philosophy is any system of ... tenets.

That's the classical, broad definition of philosophy.

I limited my definition to "reality" and that could or could not include something like the philosophy of a fictional world, for example.

But taking the definition as you posted it -- science is a system of beliefs, values and tenets. It also includes "observations" which are not "reasoned arguments" as such. So, we don't say that science equals philosophy, per se. But scientific reasoning is a product of philosophy.

 

[wuliheron]

Ok, I disagree. Let's look at definition #5.

My definition was narrower than that. I said that philosophy was a system of reasoning about reality.

With the dictionary definition you provided, philosophy is any system of ... tenets.

That's the classical, broad definition of philosophy.

Now it seems I have to explain how to use a dictionary.

The definition you chose was listed as #5 because it is one of the lesser used. In addition, dictionaries often include examples of the use of words in specific contexts to clarify their meaning. In this case an example might be, "That is my political philosophy" indicating that the word philosophy can be used as euphemism for "beliefs".

The first definition of philosophy is the more commonly used when discussing philosophy as a discipline.

I limited my definition to "reality" and that could or could not include something like the philosophy of a fictional world, for example.

But taking the definition as you posted it -- science is a system of beliefs, values and tenets. It also includes "observations" which are not "reasoned arguments" as such. So, we don't say that science equals philosophy, per se. But scientific reasoning is a product of philosophy.

Once again here is the definition of science:

Science
oun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

There is nothing in this definition about "reality" which is a metaphysical concept or "values" which are part of ethics, both of which are sub-disciplines of philosophy. By definition metaphysical concepts, for example, cannot be proven and are therefore not scientific.

 

[ikos9lives]

Now it seems I have to explain how to use a dictionary.

I can't see any reason for the personal insult here. We might disagree on this topic, but it's certainly not worth taking offense with one another. In any case, I'm going to leave it with this ...

I was responding to your statement:

Note that none of these definitions are nearly as broad as yours.

I'm not going to discuss this in order to try to prove you wrong or humiliate you. I can respect your beliefs and opinions.

If you want to discuss this further, perhaps you could help me understand ...

What difference do these definitions mean in a larger context? Right or wrong - what impact do you perceive that it has either way?

 

[wuliheron]

If you want to discuss this further, perhaps you could help me understand ...

What difference do these definitions mean in a larger context? Right or wrong - what impact do you perceive that it has either way?

The difference is that there is such a thing as professional philosophers and not everyone considers themselves a philosopher just because they have "a set of beliefs and tenets." You are perfectly welcome to your own beliefs, but in conversations I'd suggest sticking to the more commonly used definitions of words whenever reasonable or at least clarifying that you have an uncommon view of the meaning of the word.

 

[ikos9lives]

To shift this discussion a bit to a particular situation.

Was talking with a philosophy department chair who is worried that some of his philosophy courses will be eliminated from the liberal arts curriculum and replaced by science ones.

Going by the title of this thread, what kind of advice or solid reasons can one give this beleaguered professor?

 

[nickthrop101]

the first ever medical scientists, called themselves philosophers ( useful bit of information) :)

 

[ikos9lives]

Thank you.

But one thing I'd like to imagine is a debate between the philosophy students and science students. Each would be required to stay within their own discipline and argue for the value of each.

Any science students using philosophy to defend science would be disqualified (or would lose). They could only prove the value of science using scientific and non-philosophical arguments.

The philosophy students would use philosophical arguments to defend the value of philosophy.

 

[Jamma]

Imo, science technically is a branch of philosophy.

I see philosophy as the subject of trying to understand everything or possibly for providing reasons for different things which influence our existence and science is a branch of philosophy which tries to achieve this with only logic, reasoning and experiment; no assertions without these are to be accepted in science.

So even though, in general, science is a much more important and useful subject to general philosophy, it is a branch of it nevertheless, due to definitions.

 

[brainstorm]

So even though, in general, science is a much more important and useful subject to general philosophy, it is a branch of it nevertheless, due to definitions.

I believe that science evolved from natural philosophy. Does the "just" in the thread-title reflect a status-differential between philosophy and science that is the product of relative funding levels? After all, if philosophy was regarded as having greater value than science, wouldn't the thread ask, "is philosophy just a precursor of science?" Imo, it is better to think of philosophy and science purely as approaches to knowledge instead of as competing academic specialties. That way it becomes possible to compare scientific aspects of philosophy with philosophical aspects of science in terms of the two approaches as overlapping with differences in emphasis. The scientific approach tends to emphasize an object-orientation to observables, whereas philosophy tends to emphasize the capacity and logic of knowing and theorizing anything, including physically observable phenomena. Nevertheless, science cannot be rigorous without an ultimate concern for theoretical and methodological issues that are must be "philosophized" critically.

A "scientist" without oversight of the philosophical bases of their science is, imo, a technician working in the shadow of real science. This doesn't mean that such work is not as difficult, complex, or thought-intensive as more active theory-negotiation. It just means that a person who measures, records data, and processes the data without being on top of the theoretical/methodological philosophies underpinning their work is shirking total scientific rigor. On the other hand, isn't it possible to produce data that support or contradict a theory without understanding exactly why or how it does? Likewise, isn't it possible to know a theory without going beyond the level of accepting it for what it is and regarding it as something outside one's sphere of influence/critique?

 

[Jamma]

I'm sure that there are thousands of scientists who haven't learned anything about philosophy, and they do just fine. And I don't think that the differences stem from different funding levels, just the applicabilities of the subjects.

I respect your opinion though; I am sounding a little harsh, and I definitely realize that philosophy has its place, and that it does hold importance. There is also room for the two subjects to overlap and help each other out, but in the way that you have worded it, it sounds like you want the subjects to borrow from each other. I'm sorry, but science just wouldn't be science anymore if it was allowed to do this; philosophy is supposed to be built upon pure logic, but it seems that for every philosophical theory, there is at least one direct negation of that theory. It is clear from this that most of the time, philosophy isn't built upon pure logic.

 

[brainstorm]

I'm sure that there are thousands of scientists who haven't learned anything about philosophy, and they do just fine. And I don't think that the differences stem from different funding levels, just the applicabilities of the subjects.

I respect your opinion though; I am sounding a little harsh, and I definitely realize that philosophy has its place, and that it does hold importance. There is also room for the two subjects to overlap and help each other out, but in the way that you have worded it, it sounds like you want the subjects to borrow from each other. I'm sorry, but science just wouldn't be science anymore if it was allowed to do this; philosophy is supposed to be built upon pure logic, but it seems that for every philosophical theory, there is at least one direct negation of that theory. It is clear from this that most of the time, philosophy isn't built upon pure logic.

Philosophy means "love of wisdom" etymologically. It really refers to all thought and other activities undertaken in the pursuit of wisdom. When you talk about scientists not having learned anything about philosophy, I think you are referring to the philosophy contained within classes in the philosophy department or books recognized as having the genre, "philosophy." These are both a subset of the universal set of all thought/activities that pursue wisdom.

 

[Jamma]

Philosophy means "love of wisdom" etymologically. It really refers to all thought and other activities undertaken in the pursuit of wisdom. When you talk about scientists not having learned anything about philosophy, I think you are referring to the philosophy contained within classes in the philosophy department or books recognized as having the genre, "philosophy." These are both a subset of the universal set of all thought/activities that pursue wisdom.

Well, yes, and my original point was that this is why science should be considered as a branch of philosophy. However, I think that it is over-exaggerating its importance to say that one needs to go out of their way to study (non-scientific) philosophy to study science. I was trying to make this distinction obvious in my earlier post, although maybe I should have carried this rigour through to my later response!

 

[brainstorm]

Well, yes, and my original point was that this is why science should be considered as a branch of philosophy. However, I think that it is over-exaggerating its importance to say that one needs to go out of their way to study (non-scientific) philosophy to study science. I was trying to make this distinction obvious in my earlier post, although maybe I should have carried this rigour through to my later response!

I'm not so sure that it is impossible to relate any philosophical idea to science in some way or other, but in general you are right that it's not necessary to get an MA in philosophy to do science, but it's not really even necessary to get an MA in philosophy to philosophize. All I wanted to do was point out some of the assumptions in this thread that are misleading, imo. Philosophy is a mode of thought/action and not a set of knowledge. Science is an approach to knowing that emphasizes empiricism and certain other discursive practices and values. The two are only mutually exclusive insofar as academic territorialism seeks to define and delimit fields as being mutually exclusive to create organizational divisions and assign people offices in buildings. Thought and knowledge are not organizes the same way as bureaucratic academia is, and it's misleading to use academic structuring as a roadmap for defining knowledge, imo.

 

[Jamma]

I don't think that everybody thinks that way; I for one said that I agree that science is a branch of philosophy, although the point I was trying to make was that imo, tacking on that part of philosophy onto science really doesn't add that much to the study of science.

The subjects aren't mutually exclusive, because science is a subset of philosophy, but if you agree to the methods of science, then the study of all theorems resting on these principles will have already fallen under the umbrella of science pretty much, leaving the rest of philosophy very little to add. So you can partition philosophy, pretty accurately, into "science" and "non-science". If you want to study philosophy at university, would you expect to be going to labs and doing science? No, because it would be completely pointless to mix the two disciplines into one department, similarly, most people going to university to study science wouldn't expect to have to learn anything non-scientific.

I think that the point is, no matter what non-scientific advances come from philosophy, they can never influence science, merely because the approaches used to come to the conclusions of these advances cannot be accepted under science. This is why there is such a divide; the subjects don't lend all that much to each other (actually, science is probably leading the way in philosophical advances; just look at all the philosophical implications of quantum theory, and the expansion of the universe). That's why it is pedantic not to view them as very different.