Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Where is the Distinguishing Mark?

  1. May 25, 2003 #1
    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2003 #2
    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...
  4. May 25, 2003 #3
    Re: Read my post in that other thread...

    But this just has to do with the fact that Philosophy is much broader, correct?
  5. May 25, 2003 #4

    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.


    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.
  6. May 25, 2003 #5
    Ultimate point being:

    "Everything philosophy can do science can do better."
  7. May 25, 2003 #6
    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.
  8. May 25, 2003 #7
    Re: Re: Read my post in that other thread...

    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….
  9. May 25, 2003 #8
    Re: Re: Re: Read my post in that other thread...

    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.
  10. May 25, 2003 #9
    Re: Re: Re: Read my post in that other thread...

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

    Philosophers do it with Love.


    Scientists do it objectively.
  11. May 25, 2003 #10

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The question is not that, but What is the distinguishing mark between physics and metaphysics? 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
  12. May 25, 2003 #11
    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.
  13. May 25, 2003 #12

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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".
  14. May 25, 2003 #13
    This statement is either false, or you will have to define 'dead' in order to explain why it isn't false.
    Then it isn’t really dead, is it.
  15. May 25, 2003 #14
    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.
  16. May 25, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  17. May 25, 2003 #16
    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.
  18. May 25, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

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

    Yep, I think my previous post says just what I want it to say.
  19. May 25, 2003 #18
    Then you made a mistake. I gave the benefit you misread, but nope. Mistake!
  20. May 25, 2003 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would ever so love to have my mistake pointed out.
  21. May 26, 2003 #20
    Oh yes, how could he possibly disagree with you . There must be some misunderstanding. No offence.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook