Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Philosophy and science

RowanM
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RowanM
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 1:37:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM, RowanM wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.

Yes, which is why I didn't say to get rid of philosophy, but when the philosophy either isn't supported or contradicts science then we should trust science more.

Also, science can observe, experiment, test, conclude, etc. Not all science is based off of direct observations either.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 2:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 1:37:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM, RowanM wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.

Yes, which is why I didn't say to get rid of philosophy, but when the philosophy either isn't supported or contradicts science then we should trust science more.

Also, science can observe, experiment, test, conclude, etc. Not all science is based off of direct observations either.

Science is based on philosophies, some of which are now shaky to the extent that science needs a new philosophical framework. Materialism is dead and neo-darwinism is not that explanatory of consciousness and mind.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 2:03:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 2:00:12 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:37:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM, RowanM wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.

Yes, which is why I didn't say to get rid of philosophy, but when the philosophy either isn't supported or contradicts science then we should trust science more.

Also, science can observe, experiment, test, conclude, etc. Not all science is based off of direct observations either.

Science is based on philosophies, some of which are now shaky to the extent that science needs a new philosophical framework. Materialism is dead and neo-darwinism is not that explanatory of consciousness and mind.

Again, I did not say to get rid of philosophy. Philosophy helps guide science, but when science makes a discovery it is more accurate than a baseless philosophical claim.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
demonlord343
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 2:39:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 2:03:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 2:00:12 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:37:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM, RowanM wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.

Yes, which is why I didn't say to get rid of philosophy, but when the philosophy either isn't supported or contradicts science then we should trust science more.

Also, science can observe, experiment, test, conclude, etc. Not all science is based off of direct observations either.

Science is based on philosophies, some of which are now shaky to the extent that science needs a new philosophical framework. Materialism is dead and neo-darwinism is not that explanatory of consciousness and mind.

Again, I did not say to get rid of philosophy. Philosophy helps guide science, but when science makes a discovery it is more accurate than a baseless philosophical claim.

Not necessarily. Philosophy do tend to ask certain questions that can be later explained by science. For example, the dimensions of the Earth used to be flat by most people in history. The Bible believed otherwise, actually, but did not have any evidence for it.
I am here, in the shadows...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:07:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 2:39:29 PM, demonlord343 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 2:03:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 2:00:12 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:37:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM, RowanM wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.

Yes, which is why I didn't say to get rid of philosophy, but when the philosophy either isn't supported or contradicts science then we should trust science more.

Also, science can observe, experiment, test, conclude, etc. Not all science is based off of direct observations either.

Science is based on philosophies, some of which are now shaky to the extent that science needs a new philosophical framework. Materialism is dead and neo-darwinism is not that explanatory of consciousness and mind.

Again, I did not say to get rid of philosophy. Philosophy helps guide science, but when science makes a discovery it is more accurate than a baseless philosophical claim.

Not necessarily. Philosophy do tend to ask certain questions that can be later explained by science. For example, the dimensions of the Earth used to be flat by most people in history. The Bible believed otherwise, actually, but did not have any evidence for it.

But was there any reason to believe that until science shows it?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
demonlord343
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:18:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 3:07:29 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 2:39:29 PM, demonlord343 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 2:03:31 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 2:00:12 PM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:37:13 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:34:36 PM, RowanM wrote:
At 3/26/2014 1:33:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.

I would not say that philosophy is redundant, but I believe that philosophy should be taken with a grain of salt. Science should be the main perspective, not philosophy.

Science has its limits you know. Science can only observe and conclude.

Yes, which is why I didn't say to get rid of philosophy, but when the philosophy either isn't supported or contradicts science then we should trust science more.

Also, science can observe, experiment, test, conclude, etc. Not all science is based off of direct observations either.

Science is based on philosophies, some of which are now shaky to the extent that science needs a new philosophical framework. Materialism is dead and neo-darwinism is not that explanatory of consciousness and mind.

Again, I did not say to get rid of philosophy. Philosophy helps guide science, but when science makes a discovery it is more accurate than a baseless philosophical claim.

Not necessarily. Philosophy do tend to ask certain questions that can be later explained by science. For example, the dimensions of the Earth used to be flat by most people in history. The Bible believed otherwise, actually, but did not have any evidence for it.

But was there any reason to believe that until science shows it?

Yes... the evidence was staring them right in the face... literally. Even the simple theory that the Earth was round had philosophical evidence behind it at first.
I am here, in the shadows...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:24:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 3:18:13 PM, demonlord343 wrote:
Yes... the evidence was staring them right in the face... literally. Even the simple theory that the Earth was round had philosophical evidence behind it at first.

I am speaking about when there was only the philosophical claim. A better example is geocentrism. When the first philosopher said that the Earth orbited the sun, while not having any evidence for it, was it wrong to ignore that claim and keep the belief that the sun orbited the Earth (after all, simple observation from Earth makes it appear that the Sun actually does orbit the Earth)? It wasn't. When evidence started to point towards heliocentrism is when it became wrong to believe in geocentrism. It is all relative to time.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
demonlord343
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:30:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 3:24:35 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/26/2014 3:18:13 PM, demonlord343 wrote:
Yes... the evidence was staring them right in the face... literally. Even the simple theory that the Earth was round had philosophical evidence behind it at first.

I am speaking about when there was only the philosophical claim. A better example is geocentrism. When the first philosopher said that the Earth orbited the sun, while not having any evidence for it, was it wrong to ignore that claim and keep the belief that the sun orbited the Earth (after all, simple observation from Earth makes it appear that the Sun actually does orbit the Earth)? It wasn't. When evidence started to point towards heliocentrism is when it became wrong to believe in geocentrism. It is all relative to time.

It may be, even though making the theory that everything is related to time is also philosophical... but the main point is that you can indeed have a philosophical idea, and have evidence for it that is also not scientific. Philosophies can have evidence. Some philosophical ideals can have both scientific and philosophical evidence for it. Technically, the theory that the Earth was flat was also based upon observation. So, thus that theory was modern science at the time being. Science normally can be very wrong at times, this is undeniable. However, a philosophical ideal and a science theory can also be one in the same. This is proven with the Earth being flat or round. Its a perfect example for the argument, since the evidence for it was also both.
I am here, in the shadows...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2014 3:33:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/26/2014 10:27:13 AM, RowanM wrote:
Has science made philosophy redundant? If you look at the universe in a completely scientific perspective, a lot of the western philosophies don't apply.
You do realize that science is a philosophy, right? And that science is predominantly western, right?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Vis13
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2014 3:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
We can do philosophy and science but we cannot do philosophy alone or science alone.
Thus, the ' good' philosophers are the scientists.