Where is the Distinguishing Mark?

[Mentat]

I started a thread about what Philosophy is, but a few people just don't seem to be getting it. Some still insist that there is some grand difference between Philosophy and Science (other than that Philosophy is much broader and takes nothing for granted, which is the only difference I see).

So, my question is: Where is the Grand Distinguishing mark, between Philosophy and Science?

Note: this question is posed at those who believe that such a thing actually exists.

 

[BoulderHead]

Read my post in that other thread...

From the same text;

The sciences are interested in finding out how things are, but they cannot tell us how things ought to be...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
From the same text;

The sciences are interested in finding out how things are, but they cannot tell us how things ought to be...

But this just has to do with the fact that Philosophy is much broader, correct?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY:

1. It began when humans asked "why"

2. After some time, many "whys" couldn't be answered. Thus philosophy began to include opinions of the answers to "whys".

3. During this time period is when science was in the womb of philosophy (see science)

4. Philosophy is now merely an attempt for an individual to define how they percieve the world. Today there are major areas of philosophy, but the mostly lie within opinions.


HISTORY OF SCIENCE

1. Humans asked "why" before they could answer it. As science moved into the seen answers became available.

2. Once this new thing was hip, more went to it, and it grew so fast. This is when science came out of the womb of philosophy

3. While philosophy asked why - and eventually turned into a fight of opinions, science asks why in a self-scrutinizing method, and ALSO ANSWERS it using empirical and self-scrutinizing techniques. Not too mention mathetmatics.


That's what happpened. Today science is power. Philosophy is nearly nothing outside of the major areas Tom mentioned earlier, which lie mostly on opinion.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Ultimate point being:

"Everything philosophy can do science can do better."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
I started a thread about what Philosophy is, but a few people just don't seem to be getting it. Some still insist that there is some grand difference between Philosophy and Science (other than that Philosophy is much broader and takes nothing for granted, which is the only difference I see).

So, my question is: Where is the Grand Distinguishing mark, between Philosophy and Science?

Note: this question is posed at those who believe that such a thing actually exists.

Words only have meaning in their application to communication. These are two perfectly good words still widely used today.

Philosophy is the love of wisdom or pursuit of the truth. Science is a tool who's use discourages love. (Personally, I have a nice set of wood working tools, but I draw the line at getting too intimate with them.) Thus philosophy can be anything from a personal lifestyle and love to whatever. Being a ridgid tool, science does not have this option.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Mentat
But this just has to do with the fact that Philosophy is much broader, correct?

Philosophy gave birth to many disciplines, a number of them became independent. In that sense I think philosophy is broad while the others are more focused. But the scope of those other disciplines can be very expansive in and of themselves.
I think that philosophy has been spit on by its children and held up to scorn, though philosophy is like an undercurrent that sweeps away empires….

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Philosophy gave birth to many disciplines, a number of them became independent. In that sense I think philosophy is broad while the others are more focused. But the scope of those other disciplines can be very expansive in and of themselves.
I think that philosophy has been spit on by its children and held up to scorn, though philosophy is like an undercurrent that sweeps away empires….

Philosophy is the result of intellect without intelligence.

Science is the result of intelligence with secondary intellect.

Science came out of the womb of philosophy with a pistol and shot philosophy in the face.

Philosophy is dead.

Now adays a philosophy is just ones publicated opinion (usually against science) of how they want the world.

Usually, one takes their philosophy and turns it into politics by forcing it upon others.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Philosophy gave birth to many disciplines, a number of them became independent. In that sense I think philosophy is broad while the others are more focused. But the scope of those other disciplines can be very expansive in and of themselves.
I think that philosophy has been spit on by its children and held up to scorn, though philosophy is like an undercurrent that sweeps away empires….

Yeah, Philosophy gave birth to science and to this day:

Philosophers do it with Love.

While

Scientists do it objectively.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Mentat
So, my question is: Where is the Grand Distinguishing mark, between Philosophy and Science?

The question is not that, but What is the distinguishing mark between physics[/color] and metaphysics[/color]? This is the famous Problem of Demarcation that Popper addressed. His answer? Falsifiability.

There are scientific theories, and there are metaphysical theories, but Popper reasoned that scientific theories must be falsifiable, that is, there must be a way to prove them wrong, if they are wrong.

edit: fixed bracket

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Tom: What? He asks a question and you tell him it's not the right question?

What does physics and metaphysics have to do with this, other than metaphysics is a subset of philosophy?

Surely it's fine to say physics encompasses ALL sciences because everything from two atoms to the entire mating process of two humans can be explained completely by PHYSICS. But we just use other science to focus from a given point.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Tom: What? He asks a question and you tell him it's not the right question?

I think it's an "apples and oranges" type question. All of science is concerned with the natural world, but not all of philosophy is so oriented. Logic, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics are not concerned with reality. Only metaphysics is. Since that is the only branch of philosophy left, I say narrow the scope to "physics vs. metaphysics".

 

[BoulderHead]

Philosophy is dead.

This statement is either false, or you will have to define 'dead' in order to explain why it isn't false.

Usually, one takes their philosophy and turns it into politics by forcing it upon others.

Then it isn’t really dead, is it.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Tom - I get ya. Now that I understand I agree, good idea.


Boulder - Re-read my post. Philosophy as it WAS is dead. And the "now philosophy is..." explains how it's risen from the dead and is now haunting us.

 

[Hurkyl]

Surely it's fine to say physics encompasses ALL sciences because everything from two atoms to the entire mating process of two humans can be explained completely by PHYSICS. But we just use other science to focus from a given point.

And surely it's fine to say philosophy encompasses ALL methods of searching wisdom because everything from deciphering the teachings of a religious text to uncovering the relationships between subatomic particles simply boils down to the pursuit of knowledge. We just use other fields to focus from a given point.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And surely it's fine to say philosophy encompasses ALL methods of searching wisdom because everything from deciphering the teachings of a religous text to uncovering the relationships between subatomic particles simply boils down to the pursuit of knowledge. We just use other fields to focus from a given point.

No. You completely did not read anything in this post. Reread, think, then post.

Don't let you want to hear get in the way.

 

[Hurkyl]

*goes off to re-read and re-think*

Yep, I think my previous post says just what I want it to say.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Then you made a mistake. I gave the benefit you misread, but nope. Mistake!

 

[Hurkyl]

I would ever so love to have my mistake pointed out.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Then you made a mistake. I gave the benefit you misread, but nope. Mistake!

Oh yes, how could he possibly disagree with you . There must be some misunderstanding. No offence.