What are the boundaries between philosophy/science precisely?

[balkan]

i'm wondering when the actual discussion of the topic begins? you guys always flip out, page up and page down, about absolutely nothing... (no offense intended )

personally, i think the boundarys are pretty fluent... you need an idea to a solution to some sort of problem or an answer to a question, and you need a way of approaching the solution aswell... that would be the philosophical part of science...
on the other hand, in order for your philosophy to have any kind of real validity, you need some amount of scientific research to back it up...
more specifically, philosophy deals with pilosophy, while science deals with science the fact that each of the areas demand some sort of contribution from the other makes the boundarys rather fluent...

btw... who cares about oppinions on whether or not some greater metaphysical designer exists, cause since you can't prove it in any way, due to it being solely metaphysical, whatever statement you make about it, remains just an oppinion...

 

[dschouten]

i'm wondering when the actual discussion of the topic begins? you guys always flip out, page up and page down, about absolutely nothing... (no offense intended )

This is true, and no offense is taken.

personally, i think the boundarys are pretty fluent... you need an idea to a solution to some sort of problem or an answer to a question, and you need a way of approaching the solution aswell... that would be the philosophical part of science...
on the other hand, in order for your philosophy to have any kind of real validity, you need some amount of scientific research to back it up...
more specifically, philosophy deals with pilosophy, while science deals with science the fact that each of the areas demand some sort of contribution from the other makes the boundarys rather fluent...

I think I understand you here. Allow me to rehash what you have just stated using my own words:
"philosophy and science are related in that scientific reasearch is required to give validity to philosophies, and philosophical reasoning is required to provide science with its basic premises, which are unprovable."

Is this an accurate depiction of your thoughts?

btw... who cares about oppinions on whether or not some greater metaphysical designer exists, cause since you can't prove it in any way, due to it being solely metaphysical, whatever statement you make about it, remains just an oppinion...

Aha! But if the realm of the material (that which is discoverable with scientific research) and the realm of the nonmaterial (that which is not discoverable with scientific research) overlap, than perhaps these opinions can be shown to be more than mere opinions. Perhaps some indications of the nature of the nonmaterial can be drawn from knowledge of the material?

 

[quantumdude]

It is good to see I am not the only one with attitude; I enjoy such fine company in this class of existents - I, with you, am "attitudal".

The smiley doesn't mean "I have an attitude", it means "I don't know what you're talking about."

This means "I have an attitude."

Idea: Allah, as described in the Koran, exists.
Thing that is required to exist: Good. Bad. Hell. Heaven. Devil. Many virgins in Heaven for each martyr. Need I go on, or would you like to read it (that is, the Koran) for yourself?

But that idea simply makes a bald assertion. It does not necessitate the existence of anything in the real world. No idea can do that, which is what I was saying. Religious claims in particular have no weight when it comes to discovering necessary truths about the world. Yes, it may be the case that those claims are true in order for the Koran to hold water, but they need not be true on ontological grounds.

You see, none of these things can be directly observed (and are thus relegated to study in the realm of metaphysics) but perhaps "this collection of ideas [science] may contain one [an idea] which does not allow for the existence of [these] nonmaterial things by stating an obvious contradiction to their existence".

But it is not possible for science (which is an a posteriori discipline) to rule out a priori the existence of anything. Scientific theories are supported by inductive reasoning. No scientific theory--including those that deny the existence of nonmaterial objects--can ever be known to be correct. This theory can state all the obvious contradictions that it likes, it would still lack the efficacy to enforce it.

Perhaps now you can understand the basis of my proposals. Also, I find it strange that you have not replied to what I think is my most important and revealing post in this thread concerning the four postulated fundamentals of science.

You mean these?

0). Scientific theories can possibly predict and explain all material interactions (processes involving matter).
1). The best scientific theory is the one which best fits observation.
2). We can hope to generate useful theories because the universe is ordered and its basic laws unchanging.
3). No scientific theory is provable; theories are chosen by the process of elimination.

This is all pretty common knowledge, so I didn't comment on it.

I have revisited these posts and found this to be correct.

Yes, I think it's right in line with the 4 axioms you stated.

 

[balkan]

This is true, and no offense is taken.

yeah... look above ^ it keeps on going

I think I understand you here. Allow me to rehash what you have just stated using my own words:
"philosophy and science are related in that scientific reasearch is required to give validity to philosophies, and philosophical reasoning is required to provide science with its basic premises, which are unprovable."

Is this an accurate depiction of your thoughts?

yeah.. a good example is the theories of atoms... it started off as a philosophy way, way, way back... and it was a great idea, but it didn't become valid until the 19'th century...
the philosophy of earth, water, air and fire as being the four elements of nature, on the other hand, was quite wrong, but it was backed up by scientific observations which made it quite valid at that time...

Aha! But if the realm of the material (that which is discoverable with scientific research) and the realm of the nonmaterial (that which is not discoverable with scientific research) overlap, than perhaps these opinions can be shown to be more than mere opinions. Perhaps some indications of the nature of the nonmaterial can be drawn from knowledge of the material?

they cannot "overlap" if one isn't discoverable by scientific research... cause that would, in your own words, make it discoverable by scientific research...
while it migth be the case, that god one day migth be discoverable by science, until that day, statements would remain just oppinions and would have way less validity that the earth, air, water and fire philosophy...

 

[Prometheus]

the philosophy of earth, water, air and fire as being the four elements of nature, on the other hand, was quite wrong, but it was backed up by scientific observations which made it quite valid at that time...

I wonder what you mean by wrong? All scientists recognize that modern science is wrong, in the context that you provide. Modern science is a stepping stone to our future understanding.

When you say that they are wrong, are you considering them wrong in a literal sense or in their symbolic sense? In their symbolic sense, the concept of the four elements is still quite valid, in my opinion.

 

[balkan]

I wonder what you mean by wrong? All scientists recognize that modern science is wrong, in the context that you provide. Modern science is a stepping stone to our future understanding.

When you say that they are wrong, are you considering them wrong in a literal sense or in their symbolic sense? In their symbolic sense, the concept of the four elements is still quite valid, in my opinion.

in the literal sense of course... it was just an example of how philosophers use sciense to support their ideas... and of course it was a stepping stone, like so much else is, and otherwise it would have gone rigth out the window in historical perspective... i bet there are tons of people who have had some sort of idea about matter, maybe even a guy that believed matter to consist of grated cheese (i hope i don't have to spell out that i am kidding here), but since there was no scientific evidence to back it up, it wasn't an idea that lasted...

 

[dschouten]

But that idea simply makes a bald assertion. It does not necessitate the existence of anything in the real world. No idea can do that, which is what I was saying. Religious claims in particular have no weight when it comes to discovering necessary truths about the world. Yes, it may be the case that those claims are true in order for the Koran to hold water, but they need not be true on ontological grounds.

Au contraire, my dearest thread-companion. Ideas can necessitate the existence of things in the real world, and it is upon confirmation of the existence of those things that the ideas are validated.

Thus, if the Koran, for instance, makes a number of prophetic statements -- which by their very nature will necessitate real-world phenomena (i.e., earthquakes etc.) -- and these prophecies are found to be correct, a statement concerning the validity of the metaphysical ideas found in the Koran can be made (like "Allah exists").

Now, if you speak of "necessitating" in the sense that, upon devising some idea, the things that that idea calls into existence are suddenly created, then you are correct above. But when I spoke, perhaps misleadingly, of necessitating, I meant to say that assuming an idea is correct, the such and such it claims must exist.

But it is not possible for science (which is an a posteriori discipline) to rule out a priori the existence of anything. Scientific theories are supported by inductive reasoning. No scientific theory--including those that deny the existence of nonmaterial objects--can ever be known to be correct. This theory can state all the obvious contradictions that it likes, it would still lack the efficacy to enforce it.

I like this, and I think you will come to regret saying this as I shall remember it for future reference.

 

[dschouten]

they cannot "overlap" if one isn't discoverable by scientific research... cause that would, in your own words, make it discoverable by scientific research...
while it migth be the case, that god one day migth be discoverable by science, until that day, statements would remain just oppinions and would have way less validity that the earth, air, water and fire philosophy...

What about considering a weaker term than "discover" such as "point to" or "seem to imply"?

 

[balkan]

What about considering a weaker term than "discover" such as "point to" or "seem to imply"?

that would still make it discoverable to some extend, like the time vector is implied in quantum mechanics and string theory... if it could leave traces in general science, then how could it
1) be 100% metaphysical?
2) be non-researchable?

 

[quantumdude]

Now, if you speak of "necessitating" in the sense that, upon devising some idea, the things that that idea calls into existence are suddenly created, then you are correct above.

That's exactly what I mean. And it's what I meant when I said that science cannot allow or forbid the existence of anything.

I like this, and I think you will come to regret saying this as I shall remember it for future reference.

Be my guest, remember it. I agree with it 100% (wouldn't have written it otherwise).

 

[donnie]

I believe in what you have to say about this - without doubt. Believe in what I have to say about it - without doubt. There you have it.