Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Gottservant]

Which philosopher was that

I, do not know.

"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"

This speaks of the mystery of the Universe, quite well!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I, do not know.

I'll add it to the list...

This speaks of the mystery of the Universe, quite well!

It does indeed, and if you think about it, you'll see that it's also a rejection of dogmatic explanations (like 'Goddidit').

 

[J_B_]

The armchair scientific & philosophical commentary you'll get here gives a skewed picture ... that is, I guess, unless your scientific or philosophical world orbits CF. Out there in the real world it's a complex picture.

My experience is that my own profession (engineering) is very apathetic towards philosophy - sometimes even hostile. My anecdotal impression, however, is that the reaction varies from science to science and technology to technology, with some being very receptive to it, some being very hostile. The likes of Sagan, Hawking, deGrasee Tyson love to wax poetic about science ... and fields like cosmology seem ripe for philosophizing - fields like sociology probably can't survive without it - yet fields like kinematics rarely intersect with philosophy.

Also, note that philosophy & theology are not the same thing ... and philosophy itself tends to range from philosophy rooted in formal logic to that which follows mind-altering substances as they're passed around the campfire.

So, in summary, it depends.

 

[Gottservant]

I'll add it to the list...

The point being that there is no prohibition in Evolution, for seeing things one way or another.

It does indeed, and if you think about it, you'll see that it's also a rejection of dogmatic explanations (like 'Goddidit').

The distance between discovering something and accepting that words that describe it are true, is not a great deal.

The problem for science is that it is possible to discover things, for which no word is enough.

 

[SelfSim]

Seeing as this thread has resurfaced again, here's a classic example of how philosophy is confused as being part of science:

In another thread, the statement was made: 'Science follows the principle of methodological naturalism'. The statement is completely misleading. 'Methodological naturalism' is an attempt at explaining to itself, how science operates, in terms philosophers can understand. Philosophers might feel the need for it .. but science has no use for it. Its just superfluous baggage as far as science is concerned, really.

Nowhere in the scientific method does it say: 'Firstly, assume the principles of methodological naturalism'. Science simply works on operationally testable definitions. Terms like 'supernatural', 'a god' or 'God' (for eg), are not operationally definable. They are both easily distinguishable as pure beliefs. Once they are, they are simply ignored and treated with indifference as science moves onwards with its testing.

Its as simple as that really .. no philosophical frameworks like 'methodological naturalism' are required (or assumed) at all.

 

[Gottservant]

Seeing as this thread has resurfaced again, here's a classic example of how philosophy is confused as being part of science:

In another thread, the statement was made: 'Science follows the principle of methodological naturalism'. The statement is completely misleading. 'Methodological naturalism' is an attempt at explaining to itself, how science operates, in terms philosophers can understand. Philosophers might feel the need for it .. but science has no use for it. Its just superfluous baggage as far as science is concerned, really.

Nowhere in the scientific method does it say: 'Firstly, assume the principles of methodological naturalism'. Science simply works on operationally testable definitions. Terms like 'supernatural', 'a god' or 'God' (for eg), are not operationally definable. They are both easily distinguishable as pure beliefs. Once they are, they are simply ignored and treated with indifference as science moves onwards with its testing.

Its as simple as that really .. no philosophical frameworks like 'methodological naturalism' are required (or assumed) at all.

Yes, science concerns itself with a specific discovery, but only faith can bring many discoveries under the same umbrella.

So concepts like God, may not affect a single discovery, but in the end how that discovery and others like it interact is actually completely dependent on that God.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, science concerns itself with a specific discovery, but only faith can bring many discoveries under the same umbrella.

The only 'discoveries' science ever makes .. are new descriptions.
Science never discovers 'the things themselves', because that is just another belief.
Science describes many similar phenomena under its category groupings (or 'umbrellas').

So concepts like God, may not affect a single discovery, but in the end how that discovery and others like it interact is actually completely dependent on that God.

'God' is operationally undefinable, is therefore just a belief, and is therefore simply ignored, (treated with indifference), as science moves onwards with its testing.

There is no such 'thing' as 'God' in science and therefore, no discovered descriptions can depend on beliefs such as 'God'.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science simply works on operationally testable definitions. Terms like 'supernatural', 'a god' or 'God' (for eg), are not operationally definable. They are both easily distinguishable as pure beliefs. Once they are, they are simply ignored and treated with indifference as science moves onwards with its testing.

For someone denying the role of methodological naturalism in science, you've given quite a good description of methodological naturalism. It's a shame you can't see that - the irony is a delight.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem for science is that it is possible to discover things, for which no word is enough.

Such as?

 

[SelfSim]

For someone denying the role of methodological naturalism in science, you've given quite a good description of methodological naturalism. It's a shame you can't see that - the irony is a delight.

And so, your delight there, is also just superfluous baggage, as I continue to think in scientific ways ..

 

[stevevw]

It's occured to me that science has led humanity on a path more in line with the study of facts, and proven things and such, and has led mankind toward the discouragement of philosophical thought. It seems that science has basically replaced philosophy.

Is it true that philosophy is ultimately outdated, pre-scientific thinking? Is philosophy "archaic" type thinking.?

I think it is becoming outdated to some. There is a push by some about the power and beauty of science and how it has and is providing us with great understanding of reality and the answers to our problems for the future. We see this with people like Dawkins, Krauss, Sam Harris and the like proclaiming everything is about scientific facts.

But at the same time philosophers of science are saying philosophy is becomeing more important than ever before due to the fact that science is being found not to be able to provide the answers to certain important questions and what science represents in the overall scheme of things. We see this with ideas such as in quantum physics and the oberserver effect, consciousness and how human behaviour can influence the world.

Having science without philosophy is like a plane pilot anoouncing to the passengers that they are making good prgrogess but don't know where they are going.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think it is becoming outdated to some. There is a push by some about the power and beauty of science and how it has and is providing us with great understanding of reality and the answers to our problems for the future. We see this with people like Dawkins, Krauss, Sam Harris and the like proclaiming everything is about scientific facts.

Sam Harris is a philosopher as well as a scientist - qualified in both fields. Judging by the amount of philosophy he publishes, he clearly doesn't think philosophy is becoming outdated...

But at the same time philosophers of science are saying philosophy is becomeing more important than ever before due to the fact that science is being found not to be able to provide the answers to certain important questions and what science represents in the overall scheme of things. We see this with ideas such as in quantum physics and the oberserver effect, consciousness and how human behaviour can influence the world.

Quantum physics and the observer effect are pure science. Philosophy is no more relevant there as it is in General Relativity (i.e. the philosophy of science and ideas in science).

 

[Ophiolite]

We see this with ideas such as in quantum physics and the oberserver effect, consciousness and how human behaviour can influence the world.

Are you confident your understanding of the current philosophical views on these matters is as current?

 

[stevevw]

Sam Harris is a philosopher as well as a scientist - qualified in both fields. Judging by the amount of philosophy he publishes, he clearly doesn't think philosophy is becoming outdated...

Yeah I like Sam Harris, I guess I was speaking more about the times I have seen or read about him he comes across as someone who thinks very philosophically but takes the position that science can explain everything and its the best way to measure everything.

Quantum physics and the observer effect are pure science.

What do you mean by the observer effect?

Philosophy is no more relevant there as it is in General Relativity (i.e. the philosophy of science and ideas in science).

I agree for calculation sake. But isn't it because quantum physics is at odds with how classical physics works which then brings philosophy into being something. Because QP brings the observer in to help try and explain what is happening people begin to question how to determine reality.

I think the default position with most scientists and perhaps science bodies is that reality is measured with the science method, that everything has a naturalistic cause. So from what I've read the observer effect has brought about a number of hypothesis about reality being something beyond naturalism such as with consciousness.

It seems to me that quantum physics brings science and philosophy to the crossroad where science cannot do without philsophy. That they also need each other.

 

[stevevw]

Are you confident your understanding of the current philosophical views on these matters is as current?

Im talking about superposition'and how the observer effect can determine position. That there is a growing number of hypothesis based on this that speak of explanations beyond our understandings of how science calculates and sees the natural world. So the science is at odds with the philosophy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yeah I like Sam Harris, I guess I was speaking more about the times I have seen or read about him he comes across as someone who thinks very philosophically but takes the position that science can explain everything and its the best way to measure everything.

He does think that science can provide a moral framework, i.e. get ought from is; I haven't read 'The Moral Landscape' yet, but I suspect an intrinsic goal, an implicit 'ought'.

What do you mean by the observer effect?

Observer effect (physics). Basically, the fact that observing or measuring a system disturbs it.

... isn't it because quantum physics is at odds with how classical physics works which then brings philosophy into being something.

I wouldn't say classical physics is 'at odds' with quantum mechanics, it's more an emergent or limit approximation. I don't see how that 'brings philosophy into being something', unless you're suggesting that deciding on an interpretation of the quantum formalism is a philosophical exercise - are you? Otherwise, please explain what you had in mind.

Because QP brings the observer in to help try and explain what is happening...

Not to my knowledge; can you be more specific?

people begin to question how to determine reality.

Philosophers have questioned the nature of reality for thousands of years.

I think the default position with most scientists and perhaps science bodies is that reality is measured with the science method, that everything has a naturalistic cause.

The first is near enough to pass, the second is cart-before-horse; if something has an influence on the natural (physical) world, it is considered to part of nature (physical). Scientists can't say anything about what has no influence on the physical world (unless it is a consequence of a physical theory), because there is nothing to talk about. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent".

So from what I've read the observer effect has brought about a number of hypothesis about reality being something beyond naturalism such as with consciousness.

There's a lot of misunderstanding of the observer effect and a lot of quantum woo out there. There's no evidence that consciousness is 'something beyond naturalism', and a great deal of evidence that it isn't. Uncritical reading can lead you astray.

It seems to me that quantum physics brings science and philosophy to the crossroad where science cannot do without philsophy. That they also need each other.

It seems to me that quantum physics changes nothing in the relationship between science and philosophy - but if you care to argue your case, I'll be happy to listen and agree or disagree as appropriate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's occured to me that science has led humanity on a path more in line with the study of facts, and proven things and such, and has led mankind toward the discouragement of philosophical thought. It seems that science has basically replaced philosophy.

Is it true that philosophy is ultimately outdated, pre-scientific thinking? Is philosophy "archaic" type thinking.?

No, Philosophy as it stands these days is a different endeavor than is Science (or more properly "The Sciences"), multiple in its directions of inquiry, and a separate field unto itself.

If this wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have sub-disciplines like "Philosophy of Science" or inquiries into "the Nature of Science" (N.O.S.). It's not Philosophy VS. Science; although there can be thinkers who think they can choose one and do without the other (which is, itself, a philosophical decision...)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Im talking about superposition'and how the observer effect can determine position.

Please explain what you mean.

That there is a growing number of hypothesis based on this that speak of explanations beyond our understandings of how science calculates and sees the natural world. So the science is at odds with the philosophy.

How about you cite some of the 'growing number' of these hypotheses?

A hypothesis that an explanation is beyond our understanding doesn't sound very scientific - how can it be tested? what is the explanation that we can't understand? What are the criteria for understanding an explanation?

 

[Ophiolite]

Im talking about superposition'and how the observer effect can determine position. That there is a growing number of hypothesis based on this that speak of explanations beyond our understandings of how science calculates and sees the natural world. So the science is at odds with the philosophy.

The questions asked by @FrumiousBandersnatch in post #36 reflect the reservations I still have about your perception regarding the intersection of physics and philosopy in the quantum world. I look forward to your replies to those questions.

 

[Vap841]

Quantum physics and the observer effect are pure science.

What precisely does it mean to observe in QM? It’s too small to see anything. When I read an explanation it seems to me like they’re saying that it just means that a person has become aware of it, but it also always seems like they’re skipping an explanation of how seeing in QM actual works. One person was making a point about how just the atoms that make up our bodies should be enough to interfere with a superposition state, so why would it even matter if we became aware of it or not. I just can’t visualize what they mean by the difference between the atoms of our body “Interfering” with superposition as opposed to us “Seeing” a superposition state.