The Instigator
xxx200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
fishinbub
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

philosophy is better than science

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 2 votes the winner is...
fishinbub
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/26/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,654 times Debate No: 22344
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

xxx200

Pro

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.


science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.

better = takes us to the truth.

i will argue that philosophy is better than science.

con will argue that philosophy is not better than science.

first round acceptance only.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

fishinbub

Con

I accept the debate but would like to refute your definition of science. Science is the study of the natural world, and should be defined as such. Otherwise I accept your definitions...
Debate Round No. 1
xxx200

Pro

philosophy is better than science because:

1] philosophy assums that natural laws can be discovered by experiencing the law as it is. on the other hand science assums that natural laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.this means taking nature into the lab and interfare with it and thus distorting the reality.

for example, if the question is how the flower grows, philosophy will study the

growth as it is. it will watch a flower grow up from buds to the complete
flower.philosopher will say that when the season comes the flower will grow up on its own from bud to the complete flowering and then it withers out.but science will first tear down the flower from the tree and then it will take it
to the lab and cut or twist it. then science comes out with an explanation that
will contradict our daily experience.


2] philosophy is totally based on common sense i.e. objective reality. it will
study the nature as it is without distorting it a bit. science on the other hand,
takes the nature into lab and cut and twist it and distort the reality. for
example: how world is made up of? if this is the question, philosophy will say that world is made up of 4 elements: earth, air, fire and water. both philosopher and laymen can see these 4 elements everyday.thus these 4 elements have an objective existance. but science will say that the world is made up of strings or sub atomic particle like electron, proton or nutron. neither the scientists nor laymen ever seen these particles or strings. thus i don't know if these things have any reality at all.

3] some will say that science gave many advanced things to the world: ships,
airplane, cars, computers etc. but just think about it. what are the functions
these advanced things performed? ships, planes and cars are used for transport.
before these we have horse/bulls for transport. these advanced things just do that same ancient job of transport in a new way.computer is doing the job of a tv in a new way. it is like old wine in new bottle.

but philosophy will give you the eyes to see which you have not had before.it will teach you to see new things and explore the objective reality of the world.

fishinbub

Con

Quick Road map here. I'll go down my opponents contentions, then address my own points. But first I would like to point out that Pro did not refute the definition I provided for science. Therefore we must assume that he has accepted it.

Contention 1) PRO states, "if the question is how the flower grows, philosophy will study the
growth as it is". Because the flower is the natural world, and science is the study of the natural world, then the study of the flower is science. Therefore it can be concluded that such a study of the flower cannot exist without science.

Contention 2) PRO states, "philosophy will study the nature as it is without distorting it a bit. science on the other hand,
takes the nature into lab and cut and twist it and distort the reality."
There are two major things I would like to point out here. The first was addressed in contention 1. Science is the study of nature. Therefore if philosophy is studying nature, then science is a prerequisite for philosophy. Therefore philosophy cannot exist without science. I will address this again later in the round.

Also, science does not "take nature into a lab and distort it". As an ecologist, I study organisms in their natural environment. Therefore this is a straw man logic fallacy. You are misrepresenting what science is. Logic fallacies are voters, and this one flows to CON.

Contention 3) "Science only improves upon what we have." Science also gave us the horse drawn cart. Science gave us medical care. Science gave us those goods to be transported. Everything is a product of studying the natural world, which I will address farther down.

Now for my contentions.

1)Philosophy requires science. Without science, philosophy would not exist. For example, let us take Dr. Karl Marx, a Dr. of Philosophy. Marx spent an excess of two years studying the natural world to develop his philosophy of Marxist Socialism. This shows that science, the study of the natural world, is required for philosophy. You will also notice that in every example of philosophy provided by PRO, the study of the natural world (science) s mentioned. If PRO cannot even provide an example of philosophy that does not require study of the natural world (science), then obviously science is required for philosophy.

2)This debate would not even be possible without science. Computers, the internet, and therefore debate.com are products of science. Therefore without science, this debate cannot even happen.

If philosophy cannot exist without science, we can conclude that science is superior.
Debate Round No. 2
xxx200

Pro

i accept that both science and phlosophy is the study of natural world. now how these 2 study nature is debatable.

1. in the question of how flower grows, philosophy and science, although both study the same thing, gave different answer. con cleverly avoid the main point here. i hope the voters will consider that. philosophy study flower while they are on the tree. science separate the flower from the tree and bring it into the lab. these 2 different approach can easily be identified. i think truth comes from the philosophical approach of studying nature because by the time you separated the flower from the tree, the flower dies and you take the dead body of the flower into the lab.

2. the major branches of science such as physics, chemistry, biology take the nature into the lab. this is what i mean when i say science takes nature into lab. science is not the prerquisit to study philosophy because science and philosophy has no relation at all. both of them only study the same thing. it is like i and Mr.x studies math. we are not related to each other but we study the same thing i.e math.


3.how do you know science gave us horse drawn cart? science as we know it today started from renessians, right after middle age.horse drawn cart existed before renessians.

4. philosophy do not require science. if you study the time frame of our history you will see that philosophy exists before dark age and science starts after dark age. so between philosophy and science dark age is the gap of time. so philosophy does not require science.

5.debate are possible without science. just take some friends to a hangout and start debating.

since philosophy study nature as it is, without distorting it a bit, philosophy is better than science.

fishinbub

Con

I'm afraid pro is very misguided about what science is and how it works. I'll hit a few points here and show how they relate to his contentions.

1)Science does not always happen in the lab. In fact, if you read many science papers you will notice that the majority of the research is done in nature. IE "the flower is on the tree". This is a strawman argument, which is a voter for Con.

2)Lab research is used to research something that cannot be researched in nature. For example, everything we know about genes are a product of lab research. Plants were taken in a lab and fertilized in a controlled environment so that the genes of the parent organisms could be controlled. This allowed scientists to properly monitor the gene heredity of the offspring. This brings me to my final two points

3)Science studies, in nature, everything that philosophy studies in nature. Therefore philosophy does not study anything science does not study.

4)Philosophy does not research in a lab, and therefore is limited in it's ability to study nature. Everything we know about genes and gene heredity is credited to science, and would not be possible without lab research. This is a major achilles of philosophy.
Debate Round No. 3
xxx200

Pro

con did not understand properly my points. hence i will tell those points once again.

1] science interfares with its subject of observation and thus distort the reality very much. take any science and you will find that it interfares with its subject in some controlled environment and thus getting wrong infos.

2] Lab research is used to research something that cannot be researched in nature. those that cannot be studied in nature cannot be reliable. we only have heard the existance of genes and saw them in computer made simulations. none of us saw genes with mortal eyes. scientists claim they see but they cannot show us. what they show does not match with the model of gene. thus it makes the existance of gene very doubtful.philosophy teahes us to be free from doubt.

3] Science studies, in nature, everything that philosophy studies in nature. no thats not true. philosophy does not study the following things: genetics, atoms or subatomic particles, robotics, quantum physics, string theory, god particle, black hole etc. because theses things are very doubtful.

4]Philosophy does not research in a lab, and therefore is limited in it's ability to study nature. no sir. philosophy will always study the nature as it is without interfaring or distorting the subject. thus it is always speaks truth. it is not limitation. it is a plus point.

philosophy is better than science.
fishinbub

Con

Pro once again has used a strawman fallacy, another voter for Con. He jumps to several conclusions.

1)Science always interferes with it's object of study.
This is false. Have we interfered with the stars? We still study them. Also, in ecology nature is often studied without interference from the observer.

Also, this interference is done in a constructive way. I cannot properly examine the effects of genes if I cannot isolate the gene. I cannot study the effects of parasite A on plants without isolating it from parasite B.

2)Because genes are studied in lab, we cannot trust the findings.
First, we have observed genes. Secondly, the genetic heredity patterns discovered by science have been found to hold true in nature. This is just one of many examples of lab research that has been proven true.

3)In reply to my third contention, you misrepresent my statement. I said science studies everything philosophy does. You did not refute this. You simply state that there are things science studies, but philosophy does not.

For my final contention I would like to bring up solvency. Your points for philosophy have no solvency. You have yet to show how philosophy studies anything that science does not. All of your points also apply to science, where objects are often studied in nature without interference. Therefore you have zero solvency. You cannot win a debate without solvency.
Debate Round No. 4
xxx200

Pro

1] philosophy studies anything that science does not

philosophy studies, beside nature, soul, god, spirits, magick etc. science simply deny the existance of these things. but many people have experienced these things. this is evidence of the bigger span of philosophy.

2]First, we have observed genes

no scientist have observed genes. they cannot show how genes look like.

the genetic heredity patterns discovered by science have been found to hold true in nature.

if so, then how come genetically modified foods becomes a disaster?

3]Have we interfered with the stars?

of course. we read star using different telescope from different labs that gives us different results. in the past when there was no telescope people use to read the stars by observing them with naked eye. that was the day of philosophy.

anything studied in a controlled environment instead of natural environment is bound to give abnormal result.

one new point:

science do not use common sense to interpret nature which philosophy does. thats why philosophy made more sense than science. for example: by observing the fossil records, our common sense tell us that once these creatures played on the face of earth. but the uncommon sense of science dictates that these creatures evolved from one another. this does not make sense.

philosophy is better than science.

fishinbub

Con

Quick road map. I'll address Pro' points then move on to why you should vote Con.

1) philosophy studies, beside nature, soul, god, spirits, magick
Should have brought this up earlier. That's a new point in the rebuttal.

2)no scientist have observed genes. they cannot show how genes look like.
False. We have observed genes and can map them to extreme detail. We know the basic building blocks of genes (Thymine, Amine, Guamine, and Cystine) and the patterns they follow.

3)if so, then how come genetically modified foods becomes a disaster?
Genetically modified foods have not become a disaster. I'm not sure how you came up with this. We successfully manipulate genes all the time, such as genetically modified crops.

4)of course. we read star using different telescope from different labs that gives us different results
Wrong, nowhere in your example do we manipulate the stars. We simply change the ways we observe them to better understand them. I'd also like to point out that prior to the use of the telescope, philosophers thought the universe revolved around the earth.

5)science do not use common sense to interpret nature which philosophy does.
New point in rebuttal. But I would like to point out once again that lab research allows us to study things philosophy does not (genes) and that the majority of the knowledge we've gained in the last 100 years is not possible without lab research.

Once again I would like to emphasize that Pro's arguments have zero solvency. He has not brought up one advantage to philosophy that does not apply to science. Therefore he cannot win. I'll run down few of my points really quickly, showing why a vote for Con is the obvious choice.

Science often studies nature without interfering with it.

Lab research is accurate and important in advancing our knowledge.

Philosophy is limited in it's ability to study nature.

Philosophy require science.

I would also like to bring up the strawman presented by Pro, which states that science distorts it's study matter. This is a voter for Con.

Thank you again for a great debate. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whitlea 5 years ago
whitlea
You can't say one is better than another.
I can say that tennis is a better sport than basketball but others might disagree.
"Truth" can be defined differently according to different people. Philosophy might be a more effective route for one person's truth, but science may be a better method for another. There is no reason why you can't employ both philosophy and the physical sciences to discover the "truth."
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Question pro: you say philosophy always speaks truth, yes? So is solipsism true? What about nihilism? No?

I rest my case.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I would've found it highly humorous if Con ran a pragamtist framework "All moral thoughts must be grounded in reality" xD it would've been funny. Using philosophy to prove science is better than philosophy.
Posted by The_Fool_on_the_hill 5 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Science is natural philosophy
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Especially since science is a philosophy
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 5 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
This is going to be an interesting debate. lol Especially since a lot of times Science is the bases for philosophies.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
xxx200fishinbubTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was just an absolute train-wreck of a debate. Someone really needs to teach Pro how to actually debate a topic and respond to other people's points.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
xxx200fishinbubTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro's definition of science was flawed to begin with but he seemed more concerned about differentiating between science and philosophy rather than going into detail about why it is "better", meaning he failed to meet his BOP of why philosophy is better than science