The Line between Philosophy and Science

[Pythagorean]

when was it drawn? Obviously scientists utilize philosophy and philosophers utilize science. But at one time, we didn't separate the two at all. How did it happen? Was it a gradual change or did it happen over a short period of time? Was there any particular influences?

 

[LightbulbSun]

when was it drawn? Obviously scientists utilize philosophy and philosophers utilize science. But at one time, we didn't separate the two at all. How did it happen? Was it a gradual change or did it happen over a short period of time? Was there any particular influences?

I always think the key distinction between philosophy and science is that science tests and demonstrates ideas.

 

[Pythagorean]

I always think the key distinction between philosophy and science is that science tests and demonstrates ideas.

I agree for the most part but that's largely the experimental side of physics. Theoretical physics requires (required?) more philosophy and creativity. You do have to prove things mathematically, but we've already shown in science that you can prove things more than one way mathematically, and have them be false for extreme cases of your mathematical "arguments". (QM vs. Classical is the most obvious case).

This adds a level of subjectivity to how you approach quantifying your predictions.

 

[Cyrus]

I agree for the most part but that's largely the experimental side of physics. Theoretical physics requires (required?) more philosophy and creativity. You do have to prove things mathematically, but we've already shown in science that you can prove things more than one way mathematically, and have them be false for extreme cases of your mathematical "arguments". (QM vs. Classical is the most obvious case).

This adds a level of subjectivity to how you approach quantifying your predictions.

It's not science if there is no experiment and data. It's that simple.

I think a lot of philosophy is simply bad science. We can sit here and aruge all day long about this and that, human nature, and all sorts of other topics. *Or*, we could gather data on many of these questions and produce actual answers.

I view philosophy as the first step necessary to science. That's not to say its irrelevant, but it needs to know it's place.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's not science if there is no experiment and data. It's that simple.

If that's your definition of science, then science is pretty impotent on its own. Good thing it had philosophical thinkers like Einstein or Descartes to inject something into science.

 

[Pythagorean]

I view philosophy as the first step necessary to science. That's not to say its irrelevant, but it needs to know it's place.

Ok, after you added this, I see we agree.BTW, to everyone:

If you read the OP, I'm looking into where and when and how the divide occurred, but I still appreciate the initial definitions.

 

[Cyrus]

If that's your definition of science, then science is pretty impotent on its own. Good thing it had philosophical thinkers like Einstein or Descartes to inject something into science.

No, einstein made predictions with his theory that were verified with experiment. This notion of 'philosophical thinkers like Einstein or Descartes' is bogus.

To clearify this statement:

I view philosophy as the first step necessary to science. That's not to say its irrelevant, but it needs to know it's place.

Before science, philosophy gave us the framework of logic so that science could emerge. Once science had a strong footing, philosophy was dead on those topics. It can be used for other things, but there is no overlap between it and science, unless it concerns using principles of science on other areas of philosophy. But philosophy that tries to make claims about science is nonsense.

 

[Evo]

I think the internet and people that think any nonsense that pops into their mind is worthy of philosophical debate has given philosophy a reputation of being the equivalent of brain diarrhea.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, einstein made predictions with his theory that were verified with experiment. This notion of 'philosophical thinkers like Einstein or Descartes' is bogus.

I disagree.

Mostly because many of his thought experiments were not experimentally verified until long after he died. He went forward without verification in many cases. If someone would have criticized him at the right moment, we could have easily lost an insightful view of the universe.

The point though, is that when they initially came up with the ideas TO verify and test, they were being philosophical... then they went and tested them. If they wouldn't have been philosophical in the first place, they would have only had what they already had verified to rely on.

We also use philosophy to make interpretations of the observations. We can't control every single variable in every experiment; If we want to discover that there's a hidden variable that explain our observations, we have to get creative about our explanations.

THEN, we cut the fat with experiments and verification.

Isn't this a brainstorming practice that EVERYONE learned through high school in the 80's and 90's? You don't criticize during stage 1, because it thwarts the creative process. You have to be patient and criticize after all the ideas have been sufficiently developed.

 

[Cyrus]

I disagree.

Mostly because many of his thought experiments were not experimentally verified until long after he died. He went forward without verification in many cases. If someone would have criticized him at the right moment, we could have easily lost an insightful view of the universe.

What do you mean you disagree? He made a calculation about (I believe it was light bending) as something passed the sun (correct me if I am wrong on the exact example here). This isn't up for debate. It's a fact. The scientific community didn't just accept what he said as the gospel. As for the last sentence, I don't see the point of debating hypothetical things that could have happened. It's pointless and serves no function.

The point though, is that when they initially came up with the ideas TO verify and test, they were being philosophical... then they went and tested them. If they wouldn't have been philosophical in the first place, they would have only had what they already had verified to rely on.

I don't know what you mean by the word 'philosophical' here, you'll have to expand.

We also use philosophy to make interpretations of the observations. We can't control every single variable in every experiment; If we want to discover that there's a hidden variable that explain our observations, we have to get creative about our explanations.

We do? I don't crack open philosophy books to make interpreations of my experimental observations - ever. Your last statement is flat out wrong. Open up a book on regression analysis.

THEN, we cut the fat with experiments and verification.

Again, no.

Isn't this a brainstorming practice that EVERYONE learned through high school in the 80's and 90's? You don't criticize during stage 1, because it thwarts the creative process. You have to be patient and criticize after all the ideas have been sufficiently developed.

Again, a meaningless empty statement. Ok, so what?

 

[Pythagorean]

I think the internet and people that think any nonsense that pops into their mind is worthy of philosophical debate has given philosophy a reputation of being the equivalent of brain diarrhea.

Holding the analogy, do you think a butplugg is a good idea?

I mean... do you think the consequences of allowing digestion are worse than the consequences of not allowing digestion?

 

[Pythagorean]

What do you mean you disagree? He made a calculation about (I believe it was light bending) as something passed the sun (correct me if I am wrong on the exact example here). This isn't up for debate. It's a fact. The scientific community didn't just accept what he said as the gospel. As for the last sentence, I don't see the point of debating hypothetical things that could have happened. It's pointless and serves no function.



I don't know what you mean by the word 'philosophical' here, you'll have to expand.




We do? I don't crack open philosophy books to make interpreations of my experimental observations - ever. Your last statement is flat out wrong. Open up a book on regression analysis.



Again, no.



Again, a meaningless empty statement. Ok, so what?

Why would you have to crack open a philosophy book to be philosophical? You're emporing your philosophy all over my post right now. And it's a pretty narrow-minded philosophy. Have fun with it.

 

[Cyrus]

Why would you have to crack open a philosophy book to be philosophical? You're emporing your philosophy all over my post right now. And it's a pretty narrow-minded philosophy. Have fun with it.

I clearly just showed you what the line between science and philosophy is. If you don't like it, tough. Let's see you get your 'philosophy' published in a science journal.

Again, science uses experiment and data. If it doesn't use experiments and data, its not science. Is that so hard to grasp? This is why and how the two branch off.

 

[WaveJumper]

I think that the marriage between philosophy and science is the most graceful relationship there is. Science is still in diapers when it comes to the WHY questions, so we definitely need some philosophy as a brain exercise. Scientists who think philosophy is bogus are usually unable to see the scope of their own ignorance. And even if one day we managed to explain how the universe works..., so what? How would that help us explain how something much much smaller than an atom grew to the present size of the universe and keeps expanding into itself?

Of course there is good and bad philosophy, as there is good and bad science. But science without philosophy is blind, boring and unappealing IMO.

 

[Cyrus]

I think that the marriage between philosophy and science is the most graceful relationship there is. Science is still in diapers when it comes to the WHY questions, so we definitely need some philosophy as a brain exercise. Scientists who think philosophy is bogus are usually unable to see the scope of their own ignorance. And even if one day we managed to explain how the universe works..., so what? How would that help us explain how something much much smaller than an atom grew to the present size of the universe? Or how the universe expands into itself?

Of course there is good and bad philosophy, as there is good and bad science. But science without philosophy is blind, boring and unappealing IMO.

Actually the ignorance is the philosophers thinking they can do science with their mental masturbation.

I have bad news for you, scientists don't use philosophy.

How would that help us explain how something much much smaller than an atom grew to the present size of the universe? Or how the universe expands into itself?

You're right. We should just philosomofize about it all day long till the cows come home. That will actually solve the mystery. <\sarcasm>

 

[Evo]

Holding the analogy, do you think a butplugg is a good idea?

Depends on where a person's brain is, I have heard of many people that have their heads up their butts.

I mean... do you think the consequences of allowing digestion are worse than the consequences of not allowing digestion?

If you are asking if contemplating meaningless drivel is a waste of time, then yes. Some things are not digestable, but it doesn't stop people from swallowing them.

An inquisitive nature and a desire to understand and figure things out are fundamental, IMO, to being a good scientist, so if those are the qualities you equate with philosophy, then we would agree.

If you mean the pointless discussions you often see on internet forums, then we disagree.

 

[WaveJumper]

Actually the ignorance is the philosophers thinking they can do science with their mental masturbation.

I have bad news for you, scientists don't use philosophy.

That's a joke, right? You don't mean to say that these scientists weren't actually scientists:
Roger Penrose

David Deutsch

Werner Heisenberg

Anton Zeilinger

Amit Goswami

Isaac Newton

Niels Bohr

Albert Einstein

Bertrand Russell

Nick Herbert

Henri Poincaré

Patrick Suppes

Bas van Fraassen

Nancy Cartwright

Larry Laudan

Adolf Grünbaum

Wesley C. Salmon

Ronald Giere

Peter Lipton

Ian Hacking

Richard Boyd

Daniel Dennett

David Stove

Wolfgang Stegmüller

Philip Kitcher

Taketani Mitsuo

Hans Reichenbach

Georges Canguilhem

Alexandre Koyré

Sir Karl Popper

Rudolph Carnap

Michael Polanyi

Otto Neurath

Carl Gustav Hempel
and many many more. Or were they really just mentally masturbating?

 

[Cyrus]

That's a joke, right? You don't mean to say that these scientists weren't actually scientists:


and many many more. Or were they really just mentally masturbating?

I don't see your point. I don't care about a long list of names with no context.

 

[WaveJumper]

I don't see your point. I don't care about a long list of names with no context.

"The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science. The field is defined by an interest in one of a set of "traditional" problems or an interest in central or foundational concerns in science. In addition to these central problems for science as a whole, many philosophers of science consider these problems as they apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to draw philosophical morals. Although most practitioners are philosophers, several prominent scientists have contributed to the field and still do."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

 

[Cyrus]

From your own quote above:

"Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to draw philosophical morals."

Notice how they use results from science. In other words, they ant contributing to science itself. They just take the results and interpret it any way they want to.

That's fine and dandy, but it doesn't solve anything in terms of our understanding of how the world/universe/whatever works. It's only an interpretation.

So if someone wants to make a thread about how the atom is this and the universe is that - its all bogus speculation.

 

[WaveJumper]

So if someone wants to make a thread about how the atom is this and the universe is that - its all bogus speculation.

When the other option is - "we don't know", i'd very eagerly choose to see the thoughts of the greatest minds of our time on the meaning of scientific findings and the meaning of reality. If you are contend with the shut up and calculate approach, so be it. But some of us believe there are deeper truths to be discovered and we take pleasure into delving into these questions.

How can someone not be interested in What is consciousness, what is real?, what is reality? what is existence?, what is emergent properties? What is the meaning of it all if there is any? Can you handle any of those questions outside philosophy?

 

[Cyrus]

When the other option is - "we don't know", i'd very eagerly choose to see the thoughts of the greatest minds of our time on the meaning of scientific findings and the meaning of reality. If you are contend with the shut up and calculate approach, so be it. But some of us believe there are deeper truths to be discovered and we take pleasure into delving into these questions.

Okayyyyyyy. But you havn't produced any answers. True enough its nice to hear "what the greatest minds have to say" on a topic. That doesn't mean jack squat about it being valid. Einstein was quite WRONG on many things. Do you want to blindly take what he says as the gospel? This is why philosophy isn't science, and theoretical physics without experiment IS NOT SCIENCE.

How can someone not be interested in What is consciousness, what is real?, what is reality? what is existence?, what is emergent properties? Can you handle any of those outside philosophy?

I like hearing about this from guys like Steve Pinker - an actual scientist. While its true that this area of science is still in the earler stages, there is great promise to solving these questions. These are the same questions philosophy likes to drone on and on about and provide no tangible products.

Don't get me wrong, I think philosophy is great. But I think the context of it has to be proper. Sure, we can talk philosophy about many unanswered questions. But at the end of the day we have to realize its all crap were saying - but I think its good that people would think about these things. I wish more people would rather than watch Amurikan Idol.

 

[WaveJumper]

I 've seen both philosophers and scientists look down on each other. The scientific position is eveident, the philosophical is that if hard determinism is true and every event is pre-determined and our most basic assumption of the existence of free will is wrong - then all our scientific theories and discoveries are pure crap.

However, my position is that the meeting point between philosophy and science can shed light where none of these disciplines can separately. If there is an answer to the question - "Why is there a universe at all?", it will be Philosophy + science that will one day find the answer(or philosophy of science for short).

 

[WaveJumper]

This will be somewhat offtopic, but how do you make sense(without the use of philosophy) of the fact that everything we experience is a construct? The Moon is a construct, the Sun is a construct, air is a construct, water is a construct, time is a construct, the whole classical universe is a construct. Even all the freaking laws of physics that we are discovering, are a construct of our consciousness, a narrow and distorted viewpoint on what's truly out there that corresponds to what we are experiencing through our misleading interface - the human senses.

But what is truly out there? Can science alone answer that?

 

[Cyrus]

I've seen both philosophers and scientists look down on each other. The scientific position is eveident, the philosophical is that if hard determinism is true and every event is pre-determined and our most basic assumption of the existence of free will is wrong - then all our scientific theories and discoveries are pure crap.

Clearly, our scientific theories and discoveries are not "pure crap", because they work. If I give you new information about 'free will' that doesn't change the fact that the science we have works, and will continue to work.

I also have no idea why you are convoluting free will with all the scientific theories. This is apples and oranges. You're really stretching it here.

However, my position is that the meeting point between philosophy and science can shed light where none of these disciplines can separately. If there is an answer to the question - "Why is there a universe at all?", it will be Philosophy + science that will one day find the answer(or philosophy of science for short).

I would argue, how: what light is philosophy sheading on science? Your proposition that it will be a combination of science and philosphy is pure speculation. This is my point. This is all talk. It doesn't get us any damn closer to the actual solution by talking about it.

What's worse, because you can't base your 'philosophy' on any evidence or experiment, its no better than mine, or his, or that guy over there, or Einstein. All of it is one big heaping steaming pile of doo-doo. I don't care if your name is Plato, if you're not bringing answers to the table, your not really doing anything constructive.

 

[Cyrus]

This will be somewhat offtopic, but how do you make sense(without the use of philosophy) of the fact that everything we experience is a construct? The Moon is a construct, the Sun is a construct, air is a construct, water is a construct, time is a construct, the whole classical universe is a construct. Even all the freaking laws of physics that we are discovering, are a construct of our consciousness, a narrow and distorted viewpoint on what's truly out there that corresponds to what we are experiencing.

But what is truly out there? Can science alone answer that?

I don't think its a 'distorted' viewpoint of what's truly out there. That would imply that what we experience is a 'fake' out there. What evidence do you have to suggest this?

 

[Evo]

I've always viewed it as talkers as opposed to doers.

People that consider themselves "philosophers" are content to talk and never do anything.

People that are "scientists" actually do something constructive with their thoughts, they are not content to just sit around and shoot the breeze.

I think that is the defining line.

 

[WaveJumper]

I don't think its a 'distorted' viewpoint of what's truly out there. That would imply that what we experience is a 'fake' out there. What evidence do you have to suggest this?

It's not fake, it's just not as we percieve it. What's out there doesn't have colour, smell, beauty, temperature, solidness, even the notion of time and space is severely called into question. All there is out there is the 4 fundamental forces(interactions) plus the point particles(possibly strings). Everything else that we label 'part of the universe' is an artificial derivative produced somewhere in our consciousness, and that is if we assume that the wavefunction has an objective existence. This IMO has mighty philosophical implications.

 

[Cyrus]

It's not fake, it's just not as we percieve it.

The world is exactly 'how we percieve it'.

What's out there doesn't have colour, smell, beauty, temperature, solidness, even the notion of time and space is severely called into question.

Sure it does. All these things are interpretations our brain makes to the world. If you can't see color, does not mean it's not out there. It is. For example: You can't see ultraviolet - but its there.

All there is out there is the 4 fundamental forces(interactions) plus the point particles(possibly strings). Everything else that we label 'part of the universe' is an artificial derivative produced somewhere in our consciousness, and that is if we assume that the wavefunction has an objective existence. This IMO has mighty philosophical implications.

There's nothing 'artifical' about it.

When I eat a candy, it tastes sweet. That sweetnees is due purely to its chemical composition. Its simply our brain being able to identify 'the real world' in indirect forms.

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree with these sentiments from Cyrus and Evo:

An inquisitive nature and a desire to understand and figure things out are fundamental, IMO, to being a good scientist, so if those are the qualities you equate with philosophy, then we would agree.

I view philosophy as the first step necessary to science. That's not to say its irrelevant, but it needs to know it's place.

^This is what I mean philosophy

Anyway, I think it's interesting how I asked a question pertaining to the history of philosophy and got a lot of anti-philosophical replies that were kind of irrelevant.

 

[Evo]

I agree with these sentiments from Cyrus and Evo:

^This is what I mean philosophy

Anyway, I think it's interesting how I asked a question pertaining to the history of philosophy and got a lot of anti-philosophical replies that were kind of irrelevant.

I think becuse the way you think of philosophy, as it pertains to science as the way it should be thought of, as a means of asking questions as PART of the scientific process. Then there are those that think of philosophy as nothing more than asking questions. That's fine, but don't expect that to be taken as part of a scientific process.

 

[russ_watters]

The question in the OP asks when and I don't see any dates here. How about 1610? That's somewhat arbitrary, but that's the year Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter. It's a good a time as any to say that science was invented and that's when the line was drawn.

Where the line was drawn is as Evo said: Galileo realized that in order to discover things about the natural world, you have to observe the natural world and devise theories based on those observations. Seems despicably obvious now, but it was well beyond Aristotle's capacity.

 

[Cyrus]

The question in the OP asks when and I don't see any dates here. How about 1610? That's somewhat arbitrary, but that's the year Galileo observed the moons of Jupiter. It's a good a time as any to say that science was invented and that's when the line was drawn.

I would argue the date when the scientific process was adopted.

 

[russ_watters]

I would argue the date when the scientific process was adopted.

Ok...

 

[epenguin]

I always think the key distinction between philosophy and science is that science tests and demonstrates ideas.

Then if you ask what an idea is and what a test is and what justifies it you will be into philosophy.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think becuse the way you think of philosophy, as it pertains to science as the way it should be thought of, as a means of asking questions as PART of the scientific process. Then there are those that think of philosophy as nothing more than asking questions. That's fine, but don't expect that to be taken as part of a scientific process.

We can easily criticize 'thinking without doing', but we can sometimes more harshly criticize 'doing without thinking'. Especially when people make harmful mistakes. Science involves philosophy in it. Every subject that is studied is necessarily involved with one philosophy or another.

As for pure philosophy itself, I'm not exactly sure what they do for society, but I assume they actually do stimulate the other subjects with talks and seminars (Daniel Dennet comes to mind, on the subjects of consciousness, which would stimulate neurology and psychology, and at least serves to inform the public about neurology and psychology).

Philosophy on the internet... is called armchair philosophy. I might as well be an armchair philosopher because my degree is in physics and my new program is in engineering, but I still like to think I can identify a logical argument.

That's another especially important aspect of philosophy; forming valid arguments. It's something I never learned in any of my science, engineering, or math classes. I learned about valid arguments in a philosophy class (ethics, specifically).

 

[Brilliant!]

I think it was when Galileo decided to give the finger to Aristotle and actually test the philosopher's "logical" conclusion that heavier bodies falls faster than lighter ones.

From this point forward, a shadow was cast on the reasoning ability of the mind. Logic is a superior pursuit, but "to err is human".

 

[apeiron]

And what philosophy were Galileo, Descartes, Newton et al so inspired by? Come on boys, do your history here.

A bastardisation of Aristotle was preserved by monks through the middle ages. Aristotelean physics did seem to make actual scientific predictions about things like flights of cannonballs which many believed and used. So already, Aristotle was science in this regard, just not very accurate as a model.

And many ancient greeks got key principles later rediscovered - Strato understood that falling bodies pick up speed (which was contrary to Aristotle's assertions). Aristarchus anticipated Copernicus by 2,000 years.

But then the question of what inspired the renaissance physicists - it was the discovery of ancient atomists texts.

The invasion of Constantinople by the Turks in the mid-fourteenth century led to a flood of immigrants from the Byzantine Empire to Italy, bringing ancient manuscripts with them.
Philosophical ideas that awakened the European mind.

Atomism directly inspired the likes of Galileo, Boyle and Newton. De Rerum Natura was a key translated text, Pierre Gassendi an early populariser (he Christianised the ideas enough to allow them to be discussed), Descartes the heavyweight philosopher who really convinced.
Galileo wrote discourses (Assayer, 1623) on it that got him into trouble with the church.

Mechanics is just applied atomism - atomism with the kind of instruments like clocks, telescopes and thermometers that people started to invent so they could measure quantities rather than qualities - what the atomists had defined as primary rather than secondary characteristics of the world.

And who started the new "method" we call science? The empiricist philosophers like Ockham, Bacon, Locke, Hume.

So we could say it all came together in the Enlightenment - there was a time when philosophy became natural philosophy (the first science).

Then this philosopy-science became so successful that it mutated into techno-industrial applied science. A discourse that felt its philosophical underpinnings were established and it just needed to get on with the job of taking control of the world.

Academic philosophy then wandered off in its own directions. You had idealism and other romantic reactions that were very unproductive from a science point of view.

Within all the nonsense, there were still a few philosophers who saw that the atomism of science was an incomplete metaphysics. It lacked the systems perspective. So from time to time we heard of people like Peirce, Whitehead, Bertalanffy, Bateson, Weiner, etc.

So believe it or not, the line between philosophy and science has a well-documented social history.

You can either talk in caricatures that serve to confirm your own prejudices, or you can actually learn the true history of the world.

It was just never the case that these practical guys suddenly got off their butts in the renaissance and did real experiments, real observations, leaving the philosophers to their noodlings.

Science has always been embedded in a philosophical context and will always remain so. It is only possible to argue different if you have a complete ignorance of your own social history.

 

[russ_watters]

And what philosophy were Galileo, Descartes, Newton et al so inspired by? Come on boys, do your history here.

A bastardisation of Aristotle was preserved by monks through the middle ages. Aristotelean physics did seem to make actual scientific predictions about things like flights of cannonballs which many believed and used. So already, Aristotle was science in this regard, just not very accurate as a model.

The method you describe (and Aristotle used) is not "science", it is a method of investigating the natural world via philosophy. Differentiating between the two is kinda the entire point of the thread!

 

[apeiron]

Differentiating is not synonomous with dualising.

Philosophy and science could be two unrelated ways of knowing the world. Which would be a pluralistic story.

They could be two exactly and completely disconnected realms of discourse, which would be dualistic.

Or they could be differentiated as different levels of the same thing - so levels and meta-levels of a hierarchically organised system.

History shows the later to be the case. Like so many, you just say nah, nah, you're not right. Without a single fact to back up your opinion. You win zero respect for that approach to scholarship.

Aristotlean physics did make concrete predictions about ballistic trajectories. Ever heard of Philoponus, Buridan, Leonardo and Tartaglia? In the middle ages, people had the practical problem of aiming these contraptions called cannons. So they did the maths and observed the results.

Along came the maths of parabolas and better physical models. Aiming improved.

Do your homework before telling me what aristotelean physics is and what it is not.

Of course, if you have studied the social history and can offer a different account, please furnish the actual details.

 

[confinement]

I agree that Galileo took a major step, putting observation and mathematics at the center of his 'dialogue on two new sciences.' Einstein said that Galileo was the 'father of modern science', and I agree, which would make the early 17th century the birthdate of science.

Philosophy and science have always been separate subjects; much of the debate in this thread concerns this and I don't want to get involved. The interesting thing about this topic is that philosophy and science were for many years done by the same people (e.g. Liebniz, Descartes), but today this is no longer the case.

In fact, these days philosophy hardly resembles science at all, and this has caused a lot of tension, not least of which in this thread.

I claim that these two subjects diverged when europe made the shift from the enlightenment to the romance era. During the enlightenment, Newton's work was viewed by intellectuals as the pinnacle of human accomplishment, and rationalism and science were in vogue like never before or since. In philosophy the rationalist movement culminated with Immanuel Kant, who went so far as to claim that Newton's law of gravitation was a synthetic a priori proposition i.e. that it could be known by pure thought alone (based on the mathematical argument that we are all essentially familiar with through Gauss' law of electromagnetism). Although this appears deathly naive in retrospect, it was significant at the time.

But this intellectuall movement towards rationalism gave rise to a counter-movement in the 19th century that is known as romanticism, where poetry, painting, and musical composition were regarded as the pinnacle of human achievement, while compared to enlightenment attitudes science became regarded as sterile and limited (indeed, a more sober viewpoint that we hold to this day, although to a lesser degree). Anyway, it's around this time that philosophers embraced the kind of writing that to this day is seen by most people as a kind of nonsense poetry / rhetoric.

Before Kant, philosophers were the ones who saught metaphysical truth, epistemological certainty, and absolute ethical principles. Kant's work spelt once and for all the death of metaphysics, and with this also died the optimistic notion that the true nature of universe can be known to us, and all of this coincided with a major ebb of religious influence in europe i.e. 'the death of God' leading to a cynical view of science and knowledge and an intoxicated view of art and subjectivity as the basis for human reality. After Kant (who was a rationalist), the desirable qualities and efforts of a philosopher became imagination, self-assertion, danger, originality, and the creation of values, which bear little resemblance to ideal qualities of a scientist.

 

[Cyrus]

Differentiating is not synonomous with dualising.

Philosophy and science could be two unrelated ways of knowing the world. Which would be a pluralistic story.

I agree one is bogus (Philosophy), while the other (Science) is not.

They could be two exactly and completely disconnected realms of discourse, which would be dualistic.

What do you mean 'they could be'. This is nothing but speculation.

Or they could be differentiated as different levels of the same thing - so levels and meta-levels of a hierarchically organised system.

"Different levels of the same thing"? What are you basing this on? The problem is nothing.

History shows the later to be the case. Like so many, you just say nah, nah, you're not right. Without a single fact to back up your opinion. You win zero respect for that approach to scholarship.

So far, you aint winning no respect here with this argument.

Aristotlean physics did make concrete predictions about ballistic trajectories. Ever heard of Philoponus, Buridan, Leonardo and Tartaglia? In the middle ages, people had the practical problem of aiming these contraptions called cannons. So they did the maths and observed the results.

What you described is science, not philosophy. I don't understand your point.

Along came the maths of parabolas and better physical models. Aiming improved.

Ok, what's the point?

Do your homework before telling me what aristotelean physics is and what it is not.

Excuse me?

Of course, if you have studied the social history and can offer a different account, please furnish the actual details.

Try this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801858690/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Math Is Hard]

Philosophers, I suppose, are primarily in the business of asking intelligent questions. Scientists are primarily in the business of answering intelligent questions. Good scientists are also philosophers and vice versa. The line is not as clear to me.

I think the discipline of philosophy will become increasingly narrowed in the future, as we develop more explanations for our questions through science. But I can't imagine it will ever completely go away.

 

[Phrak]

Science and Philosophy blend seamlessly into one another. A marriage made in heaven.

Science offers the unthinkable--to come to a conclusion. This is a philosophically untenable outcome: to put the conversation to an end.

Philosophy offers the scientifically untenable--to never obtain a solid conclusion.

 

[epenguin]

Science offers the unthinkable--to come to a conclusion. This is a philosophically untenable outcome: to put the conversation to an end.

Philosophy offers the scientifically untenable--to never obtain a solid conclusion.

Scientism knows all the answers.
Made easier for itself by not recognising any questions.

 

[Cyrus]

Scientism knows all the answers.
Made easier for itself by not recognising any questions.

Um, what?

 

[JoeDawg]

when was it drawn? Obviously scientists utilize philosophy and philosophers utilize science. But at one time, we didn't separate the two at all. How did it happen? Was it a gradual change or did it happen over a short period of time? Was there any particular influences?

It depends what you mean by science... and although many sciency types would like to think otherwise philosophy is still very much the foundation of anything you might want to call science.

Aristotle was known for being a student of natural phenomena, especially with his dissections of animals and such. At the time though, because knowledge of the natural world was pretty rudimentary, the theoretical end of things was often wrong.

Couple that with the fact that the ancients were much more impressed with mathematics than with the physical world, and you ended up with theories like Plato's forms. Where mathematical ideas were thought to be the 'most real'.

There are lots of examples in that time and since however of 'scientific' type observations, but it was never formalized, until very recently.

The enlightenment was the chief source of modern scientific thought. But even then there were still mathematicians like Descartes, who viewed 'rationalism' as the true source of knowledge. That is, one could 'logically' figure out the world, without having to observe it.

'Empiricism' is really where science starts to make itself known: Bacon, Hume, Newton, Galileo.

The idea that all knowledge could be derived from observation is empirical philosophy. Science is really just a narrow band of philosophy. And rationalism wasn't eliminated, but with science these days we tend to think in terms of theoretical and applied science. Which are essentially the rational and empirical ends of the spectrum.

Logical positivism was an attempt to reconcile logic and observation... but it is largely regarded as a failure.

There are still some real problems with science, which is where the philosophy of science comes in. The demarcation problem, the problem of induction, the definition of method, and the difference between explanation and observation are all still very relevant issues to science.

Of course, when scientists are in the lab, they generally aren't focused on the more philosophical aspects of science, but its still important to them, because 'what is good science' is very much a philosophical question.

One might be tempted to limit good science to observation, but really, science also depends on theories, which are logical abstractions, and even inspiration...

 

[Phrak]

Scientism knows all the answers.
Made easier for itself by not recognising any questions.

I think I struck an unexpected nerve. What is scientism? Is that, like, the flip-side of philoism?

 

[madness]

I think the line between science and philosophy is not at all clear, contrary to what certain people in this thread are saying. Most agree that string theory is currently not science but may become so in the future. Einstein said (about quantum mechanics) "if it is right, then it signifies the end of physics as a science", and there is some justification in this - in QM you lose the idea of an independent observer making measurements of a system without interfering with it, which was one of the basic tenets of the scientific method during its conception. The question of what is and isn't science is a philosophical one. I also think it is quite ignorant to think that science can have any hope of answering the same questions that philosophy can - we need philosophy just to interpret the results of our experiments, otherwise all we have is a set of data.

 

[Cyrus]

I think the line between science and philosophy is not at all clear, contrary to what certain people in this thread are saying.

No, it's pretty clear to the scientists in this thread what the difference is. The non-scientists seem to want to hear otherwise.

Most agree that string theory is currently not science but may become so in the future.

Most? Unless it is validated by experiment it is not science.

Einstein said (about quantum mechanics) "if it is right, then it signifies the end of physics as a science", and there is some justification in this - in QM you lose the idea of an independent observer making measurements of a system without interfering with it, which was one of the basic tenets of the scientific method during its conception.

No, it is not. This phenomenon is on the microscale. Theory at the macro scale doesn't care about this effect. That being said, I don't see any "end of physics as a science"...

The question of what is and isn't science is a philosophical one.

Again, no it's not.

I also think it is quite ignorant to think that science can have any hope of answering the same questions that philosophy can - we need philosophy just to interpret the results of our experiments, otherwise all we have is a set of data.

Ok, I'll be sure to email you my research data so you can interpret it for me - right.