Is science at odds with philosophy?

[durangodawood]

Off topic thought: I always wanted to go on a long bike ride, but the only long bikes I could find were tandems.

I have one! I guess I decided to go on a short bike ride instead....

 

[FredVB]

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Is it true that philosophy is ultimately outdated, pre-scientific thinking?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 believe philosophy is unavoidable in areas science doesn't or cannot reach, science can deal with vast areas but science does not deal with everything.

 

[The Barbarian]

I believe philosophy is unavoidable in areas science doesn't or cannot reach, science can deal with vast areas but science does not deal with everything.

Today's winner. Emphatically, yes. It's perfectly reasonable to be unscientific where science does not apply.

 

[RDKirk]

Today's winner. Emphatically, yes. It's perfectly reasonable to be unscientific where science does not apply.

Even then, one does not throw logic to the wind...

...logic being a philosophy, not a science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes. Inductive logic isn't the only kind we have to use.

Time was, a biologist was expected to be reasonably competent in philosophy. I came in just as that was giving way to a more mathematical approach to life sciences.

 

[SkyWriting]

I believe philosophy is unavoidable in areas science doesn't or cannot reach, science can deal with vast areas but science does not deal with everything.

"Science" is a philosophy. One that is popular though not universally so.

For example, many people point to "Facts" only becasue these "facts" are popular.
Also, "Facts" are accepted if the conditions of said "fact" are believed to have been reproduced.
Also, general acceptance of a "fact" is considered "higher" standing if acceptance is greater.

But lets shoot holes in this philosophy:
No historical event can actually be repeated.
So all facts are based on "Theater" or "plays" that mimic an original event.
If a new observation is discovered it encounters great resistance until it bevomes accepted.

But an actual new "observation" is considered "Baloney" until enough "credible" people decide it is valid and then it changes from "Baloney" to "Established Fact."

As you can see the philosophy of science is still just a philosophy.

Doc·tor of Phi·los·o·phy
/ˈdäktər əv fəˈläsəfē/

noun: PhD

1. a doctorate in any discipline except medicine, or sometimes theology.
   • a person holding a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
     plural noun: Doctors of Philosophy; plural noun: DPhils; plural noun: PhDs

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If a new observation is discovered it encounters great resistance until it bevomes accepted.

But an actual new "observation" is considered "Baloney" until enough "credible" people decide it is valid and then it changes from "Baloney" to "Established Fact."

That's not how science works. In general, a novel scientific observation must be confirmed by independent scientific replication before it is accepted; it's not a question of 'credible' people 'deciding'. But even 'established scientific facts' are implicitly provisional.

As you can see the philosophy of science is still just a philosophy.

Doc·tor of Phi·los·o·phy
/ˈdäktər əv fəˈläsəfē/

noun: PhD

1. a doctorate in any discipline except medicine, or sometimes theology.
   • a person holding a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
     plural noun: Doctors of Philosophy; plural noun: DPhils; plural noun: PhDs

Doctoral nomenclature is traditional rather than literal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As you can see the philosophy of science is still just a philosophy.

Doc·tor of Phi·los·o·phy
/ˈdäktər əv fəˈläsəfē/

noun: PhD

1. a doctorate in any discipline except medicine, or sometimes theology.
   • a person holding a Doctor of Philosophy degree.
     plural noun: Doctors of Philosophy; plural noun: DPhils; plural noun: PhDs

1. Not all science doctorates are Ph.D.s or contain "philosophy" in the name, especially outside the English-speaking world.

2. Most pre-doctoral degrees in science fields do not contain the word "philosophy". In the US (where you and I both are) those are typically BS and MS, where the "S" is for "Science", or occasionally BA and MA, where the "A" is for "Arts". Is science now "Art"?

3. Most academic research doctorates *are* Ph.D.s regardless of field (Literature, history, sociology, sciences, engineering, etc., etc.) though some universities use specialized doctorates like Ed.D. or Eng.D. These are separate from the advanced professional training certificates that get the "doctor" label like J.D. or M.D. Are all of these fields granting "Ph.D."s also "philosophy"? If so, nearly everything modern universities do is "philosophy".

I think you need an argument that isn't based on frozen-in nomenclature.

--Your friendly, neighborhood not-a-philosopher

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If so, nearly everything modern universities do is "philosophy".

That's not so far off - I think any subject can be (and probably is) 'philosophised'; in general, it's the meta-consideration of a subject.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's not so far off - I think any subject can be (and probably is) 'philosophised'; in general, it's the meta-consideration of a subject.

Personally, I reject the notion of "metaphysics". After all what is there except physics and things derived therefrom, so how could anything be beyond physics. Makes no sense.

 

[SkyWriting]

If so, nearly everything modern universities do is "philosophy".

Good. I've come to the same conclusion. And I gave reasons why believing
what the high faluttin herd tells you it true, is a philosophy.

Even "Peer review" is a whimsical philosophy where the strangest people in the world decide if you are worthy of being published.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good. I've come to the same conclusion. And I gave reasons why believing
what the high faluttin herd tells you it true, is a philosophy.

Even "Peer review" is a whimsical philosophy where the strangest people in the world decide if you are worthy of being published.

You haven't been posting much in threads I monitor for a while now, so...

Are you posts intended to be comprehended? I don't remember.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's not how science works. In general, a novel scientific observation must be confirmed by independent scientific replication before it is accepted.

It's a philosophy that the more people agree, the more an idea is accepted or "true" or "a fact".
But that's still a philosophy given that at any time in the future, it might be shown to be "wrong" by hostile examination.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But that's still a philosophy given that at any time in the future, it might be shown to be "wrong" by hostile examination.

What philosophies have been shown to be wrong and discarded? They seem immortal. Partisans of multiple philosophic schools exist in a way that is, from what I can tell, not at all like science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Personally, I reject the notion of "metaphysics". After all what is there except physics and things derived therefrom, so how could anything be beyond physics. Makes no sense.

It's not so much 'beyond' physics, but about the ideas of physics and the questions raised by our existence in the physical world, including its semantics, e.g. what do we mean by 'real' or 'exist'?

It isn't particularly aimed at answering questions, but mainly about asking questions (although answers can come as a result), clarifying concepts, and seeing how different ideas stack up against each other and what we know.

Sometimes these ideas are about areas that science has yet to fully untangle, and so they tend to become increasingly practical over time, e.g. phenomenology, and sometimes they're more abstract, e.g. epistemology or ontology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's a philosophy that the more people agree, the more an idea is accepted or "true" or "a fact".
But that's still a philosophy given that at any time in the future, it might be shown to be "wrong" by hostile examination.

That may be true of human society in general, but science is specifically not a philosophy of popular consensus, it's a philosophy advocating a methodology of corroborated and validated observational data and tested hypotheses.

It's certainly true that, as a human endeavour, it is subject to human foibles & weakness, but the philosophy explicitly militates against that tendency through the tools of the scientific method.

It's not the philosophy that is likely to be shown to be wrong - the philosophy has been developed in an evolutionary way, based on what has been shown to work most effectively.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's not the philosophy that is likely to be shown to be wrong - the philosophy has been developed in an evolutionary way, based on what has been shown to work most effectively.

Well. That's a declaration for the text books.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well. That's a declaration for the text books.

Meh. Let me know when you find a more effective & successful means of acquiring knowledge about the world - or, for that matter, how you think the philosophy of science could be shown to be 'wrong'.

 

[SkyWriting]

Meh. Let me know when you find a more effective & successful means of acquiring knowledge about the world - or, for that matter, how you think the philosophy of science could be shown to be 'wrong'.

It's based entirely on the views of sinners.
Not only are humans wrong, but they can choose to deceive at will.

Fraud in science: a plea for a new culture in research - Nature
Currently, there are numerous and partly publicly discussed cases of research misconduct and fraud. These cases span various sciences, but are particularly common in biomedical research.

 

[SkyWriting]

That may be true of human society in general, but science is specifically not a philosophy of popular consensus, it's a philosophy advocating a methodology of corroborated and validated observational data and tested hypotheses.

"Corroborated and validated observational data and tested hypotheses" - popular consensus