The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Science is philosophy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/16/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,673 times Debate No: 24305
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (1)




Science is philosophy!

Rational/reasonable: To think incoherence with logic.

1. Arguments must be intellegentally defended by the Debators.

2. Appeal to authorty or references are NOT replacements for Arguments.

3. Principle of Charity=Conduct

4. The Debate is for Intellectual truth value rather then debate value.

Principle of Charity
-respecting the most likly meaning of the debator.
-giving the best representation of opponest arguments.
-Assume your opponent to be rational and intellegent.
-Vague language is to be avoided.

No Loop whole wins;
-sementic Games.
-playing to the definition

Definitions rules!
The Most informative, percise and reasonable definitions are to be taken over others.

A contradiction, is a FATAL blow. No believes, or convincings, or seems like, or shouldness Votes about it.

First round is acceptence.


I am not quite sure what you are debating so please correct me if I am wrong. You are asking the question "Is Science Philosophy?". If this is the true nature of what we are debating I would definitely be on the con side. To avoid playing semantic games I would like to find the most clear and concise definitions I can find; if you disagree with the following please provide clarification in your next argument.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, orconduct.
Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged
and showing the operation of general laws:

With this in mind one must look at the disconnect. Philosophy often provides definitions for items that make them completely untestable. For example, while debating a person about the origin of the universe I often refer to 'nothing' in the physics. Why? Simply because the philosophical definition of 'nothing' which many refer to as "non-being" is completely untestable. Debating philosophical certainties will almost always end in a train wreck of semantic loops and logical absolutes that will provide no elucidation to genuine questions.
Debate Round No. 1


Loud Speakers: Ladies and gentlemen. (Only the Gentle ones)

Welcome to the Hill! The Host this evening will be (drum roll!!) The Fool

The Fool: ta daa!!!

Clown monkey: Boooo!

The Fool: Well that’s not very nice, who else you are expecting? I am the only one that lives here!

Clown Hawk: The Fool sucks!

The Fool: hey, hey! Now give me a chance here. Maybe I will say something Cool.

Clown monkey: Do you have reference for that? (The crowd of Haters chuckles: Ah ha ha ha)

The Fool: Ouch low blow. Okay shh. What I want to mention is how I am changing up something, a lot of complaints I get is that many don’t understand a lot of the thing.

Clown Monkey: We never understand you, but we respond anyway.

The Fool: Well one or the other eh!

Clown bear: Knowledge does not exist.

The Fool: Why do you always have to be a negative Nancy!

The bearded lady: Why is it always a Girls name? Why can’t it be like Bad news ‘Brown?

The Fool: eh..There is a bad news ‘brown’ in wresting one time.

Hawk: what??

The Fool: never mind, never mind.


The Fool: some people complain about me speaking incoherent. My English spelling is off, and sometimes the grammar is because there is certain little differences in the order of wording between languages.

E.g. Hotdog is English, hot-> dog is the order, but in french its reversed’ Dog-> hot.

So thinking within difference languages causes these mistakes and I often can tell then even proof reading. But as well as that, I also like to get into pretty complex philosophy, and it is also often I am getting into advance level, philosophy, so I will put the Warning HARDCORE with Recommendations beside the related paragraphs which to the best of my limits of knowledge I think is necessary, to capture it. Many of you may get it intuitively. But they will only be complimentary and not necessary components of my core argument. Here is an example:

Science eh!

The Fool: Is science philosophy. I would argue so! It’s a bit of a sticky topic, because the words science and philosophy are used inconsistency throughout population. That is why; I made sure to specify the most rational definition is to be taken. By rational is that it encompasses what we want to talk about and it’s clear and distinct. No conclusions can be made from a vague definition. That is any conclusion can only be equal or less then the clarity of the concepts being used. (Via Slippery Slope fallacy)

Hard-core :(1 U level Logic or Critical thinking)

That is if the input concept on an inference only represents 80% of a correspondent relationship to reality. Then every inference based this vagueness will be vague itself and anything else anything less than a perfect concept will make it worse until there is no significant meaning is born. That is below 50% change of reflecting anything besides the idea. (Thus those who continue this process are Fundamental Idealist.)


0.8*0.9*0.6*1.0*0.8 =0.35 of it having any correspondence to realty

1.0 is a clear and precise concept. It is below 50% at C.

The Hawk: Its sounds like ideology reasoning. I like that?

The Fool: you are right on that one Hawk. It’s not much good for a critical philosopher.

Pink Eye the clown: Yep, hmm hm. Let’s reason like that and then forces other to have to follow it too.

The Fool: isn’t that just terrorism? Hasn’t that kind of reasoning just cause wars, murders, and make people hate each other for something as real as a Unicorn.

The Bearded Lady: Yeah but are liberators, freedom fighters, saviours, and(Just keep adding vague terms so it sound like we are saying more. but none of them means anything in particular.) And that!

The Fool:????

The monkey: Where are you reference for that?

The Bear: Its true but we don’t know why!

The Fool: Exactly.

My definition

The Fool: Defining with precision is an art; it takes practice, it’s not something you master in one day.

Drpessimistic: Philosophy is the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

The Fool: we could even say more simply that it’s the quest for knowledge. This is more generalized, but not vague.(general =/=vague) But yours is fine.

Drpessimistic: Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged.

The Fool: I am glad you defined them because that exactly the point I wanted to make. I would have defined them similarly. I would have said Natural Science is a body of knowledge which focused on sense data.

But the key word here is ‘knowledge’ that is philosophy in the Western Classic Greek and analytic sense is simply the quest for knowledge, in relation to the use of the ‘word’ philosopher as the lover of wisdom. Where wisdom is in the accumulation of knowledge. Thus we may say that the philosopher Seeks salvation through knowledge.

Even the Term ‘science’ comes from the word ‘knowledge’ but philosophers always used the term to refer to 'a body of knowledge.' Where ‘really’ philosophy is The General Science and within it are branches/bodies of knowledge. Natural philosophy/Natural science being just one among them, mathematics being the science of mathematics; Also political science, or the science of biology. (Science of living things) So ‘a science’ in its original use of the word is simply a particular branch of knowledge. The particularity was simply the subject/object being studied.

If you look back in any philosophical text which is based on a critical investigation of knowledge you always hear them talk about 'a science.'

‘Thales of Miletus, the reputed originator of the Greek philosophical and scientific tradition, lived part lived in the first part or the sixth century, as shown in his alleged prediction of the solar eclipse of 585 B.C.’ Philosophy Before Socrates

There the author is appealing to a modern audience who are not aware of the similarities that he has to say them both for people to get that they are of the same origin.

The idea is that the only difference is that Natural philosophy is the philosophy of physical phenomena. Natural Science is making theories based on observing the world. Of course back then it’s not in the modern Industrialised sense, But point he is making is that it (in written western history) demarcates a change in the way of thinking. To try and explain the world without simply inserting God for something you don’t yet understand. This type of reasoning progresses fast up until the fall of the Western Roman Empire when the Barbarians burn all the books and scripts because they don’t know any better. This plunges us into The Dark Ages, an age where Europe becomes completely ignorant, and violent, giving rise to the spread of Christianity. While North Africa and the Middle East with access to Greek and Roman knowledge begin to flourish, into a nation of Islam.



drpessimistic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


The_Fool_on_the_hill forfeited this round.


drpessimistic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Long live the Fool!


drpessimistic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
God damn. It auto-corrected.

It was "intellegent."
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
"Assume your opponent to be rational and intelligent"

Posted by 000ike 4 years ago
I find pro's position offensive
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
Are you talking about my video or responding to Fool? Well, just in case, my video was of the character my profile picture is of using his catchprase "Fool!" (or "Baka" in japanese, which I'm used to). I thought it would apply because I both fooled him and he goes by Fool on the site.
Posted by drpessimistic 4 years ago
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
I knew you'd like the video! The English voices pale in comparison to the Japanese voices, but you get why I referenced Excalibur when talking with you :)
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
OKay, then you will like it.
Posted by drpessimistic 4 years ago
I am rather interested in your response because this is a question that I am rather curious about as a Scientist.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
Please make sure to ask those questions before accepting. A I feel bad now, but yeah its what your saying and I am already in the pro position. You have already accepted the con position. But I think this is fatal already.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had forfeit issues, but Pro did present arguments and did come back for the end.