Science/Philosophy poll

[John21]

[MidGe]

N/A, since on these forums religion is considered philosophy.

[soon2bepro]

(partially) agree if you mean that it's useful to philosophy, disagree if you mean that it's bound by it

[vhawk01]

I think its bound by it and is subservient to it. Am I the only 'scientist' (to use the term VERY loosely) who thinks so?

[vhawk01]

This should have been public!

[Phil153]

Science is only a distillation of common sense. It's not a servant to any philosophy.

Some may think it requires a naturalist philosophy, but that's because the entire world, as far all human senses and reason can reveal it, is naturalistic.

[arahant]

An excellent example of the pernicious effects of language.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
An excellent example of the pernicious effects of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, "servant" is probably too strong of a word, and "guided by" seemed a little too weak. So somewhere in between the two I guess.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Science is only a distillation of common sense. It's not a servant to any philosophy.

Some may think it requires a naturalist philosophy, but that's because the entire world, as far all human senses and reason can reveal it, is naturalistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

But science can only exist in such a world. Or at least it can only have meaninging in such a world. I didn't mean it in a demeaning way, of course, but science is only a tool, and its only useful under certain assumptions, and I think those assumptions are the purview of philosophy.

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An excellent example of the pernicious effects of language.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, "servant" is probably too strong of a word, and "guided by" seemed a little too weak. So somewhere in between the two I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he was refering to your describer, but more to the science/philosophy dichotomy.

Popper's philosphy was a real addition to science, but it largely came from a reflection on science. The proofs against Kant came from science itself (relativity, non-euclidean geometry etc.) but they were in a sense philosphical changes. The two terms being somehow, wholly distinct is the liguistical problem that leads to a question that, seems to be an actual question but, is really just about word definitions.

[thylacine]

Science Theory

Science Experiment

Philosophy Theory

Philosophy Experiment

Oh wait? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[soon2bepro]

The only thing science must assume in order to proceed as such, is that what worked one way in the past will probably work the same way in the future. (otherwise every experiment, observation and theory is useless)

It doesn't require any sort of philosophy. (FWIW, I consider myself a philosopher)

[IronUnkind]

Science has philosophical foundations.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing science must assume in order to proceed as such, is that what worked one way in the past will probably work the same way in the future. (otherwise every experiment, observation and theory is useless)

It doesn't require any sort of philosophy. (FWIW, I consider myself a philosopher)

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know it also has to accept causality as well as uniformity, right?

[soon2bepro]

I'm not sure. Causality is the only way for us to understand or think of things. Everything else is just a twisted projection, but we use causality to understand it.

I guess if we somehow learned to use some other method, we could talk of assuming causality. But so far, the very meaning of understanding implies causality.

So causality is kind of self assumed when you're using causality-based thinking to consider it.

[Skidoo]

Science IS philosophy. In fact, it used to be called natural philosophy. The term science has come into use as the various fields have developed, but the essentials were there.

The full name of Newton's "Principia" is The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy.