Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Application of philosophy

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 5:58:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What are some things (outside of math and the laws of logic) that have been shown to exist (just as conclusively as science or better) thanks to philosophy (that could not be shown with science)?

I am currently trying to convince someone that philosophy is important, but he refuses to listen to the math and logic points.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:51:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:58:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What are some things (outside of math and the laws of logic) that have been shown to exist (just as conclusively as science or better) thanks to philosophy (that could not be shown with science)?

I am currently trying to convince someone that philosophy is important, but he refuses to listen to the math and logic points.

Science came from philosophy.
Critical thinking was 100% philosophy, long before the Scientific Method.
200 years ago there were no "scientists" - they were 'natural philosophers'.
All of moral and ethics are from philosophy. Science says nothing about these issues.
Epistemology and metaphysics, indispensable to science, are branches of philosophy, not science.

No philosophy, no science.
Science is a snot nosed, defiant infant, in a dirty diaper, and Philosophy is the reluctant parent.

Science, as a discipline, knows nothing with certainty.

~ ~
Many people believe that science is the best route, if not the only route, to truth about the natural world. Other people, including many scientists, believe that scientific knowledge may not be perfectly true, but it is closer to the truth than other sources of knowledge and belief.
Both those views are misguided, not because of any problem with scientific knowledge itself, but because of our overly simple beliefs about it. In this essay I will argue that totally correct knowledge -- "truth" -- is neither the goal, nor the product, nor any part of the process of scientific work.
http://dharma-haven.org...

~ ~ ~
In science there is no "proof" for any thing.
Scientific proof does not exist. We are told this by professional scientists, and there is virtually no disagreement among them. Some few philosopher scientists may argue that proof is possible, but they are an unnoticeable minority.
Science can provide evidence that will convince a reasonable and informed person that this or that is true, and we call this "scientific convincing evidence". Things or events identified in this way will often be identified as "scientific facts".
There are many who say there is "proof" in mathematics, but that is a different issue.
I mentioned this in another thread, and it was doubted.
Now is the time for those who disagree with me on this, to speak up.
I have provided some documentation to support my position.
~ ~ ~
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can"t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.
http://www.psychologytoday.com...
~~ ~ ~
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.
http://chemistry.about.com...
~ ~
While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic.
http://www.digipac.ca...
~ ~ ~
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:09:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 8:33:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The scientific method is meaningless without philosophy.

Determining what the "scientfic method" is (and there isn't one single "scientific method") is itself a philosphical enterprise.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 10:14:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 10:09:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 8:33:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The scientific method is meaningless without philosophy.

Determining what the "scientfic method" is (and there isn't one single "scientific method") is itself a philosphical enterprise.

Exactly.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,180
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 1:26:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 10:09:25 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/3/2015 8:33:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The scientific method is meaningless without philosophy.

Determining what the "scientfic method" is (and there isn't one single "scientific method") is itself a philosphical enterprise.

Philosophy sets the parameters, but Science decides.
Within one discipline, one scientific method.
There is variety from discipline to discipline, based on the tools and goals, but there are not disagreements, the variations are not in opposition with each other.
There are variations based on the skill lever of the student, elementary school versions differ from University versions.
Do you see it otherwise?
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:15:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:58:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What are some things (outside of math and the laws of logic) that have been shown to exist (just as conclusively as science or better) thanks to philosophy (that could not be shown with science)?

I am currently trying to convince someone that philosophy is important, but he refuses to listen to the math and logic points.

There is no difference between science and philosophy. There is not a true difference between philosophy and theology as the study of religions. There is a difference between religion and theology, and between religion and philosophy. In philosophy, there two main divisions are between physics and ethics.. Physical forms have being and meaning, and moral forms have only meanings. There is no -ology that does not result from philosophy. History in addition is a branch of philosophy; and the common element of all, even in Ethics, is the sense of cause and effect.

Your friend; if he will not listen to reason is not your friend; nor is he a friend to himself.. This is not to say that reason is the be all and end all of life. People are fundamentally irrational beings, and this means that philosophy has always had an up hill path. Morals in action are entirely contrary to reason, but the study of them certainly presumes a logic behind the illogical, as one must do even of instinct and biology. The discovery of that logic is philosophy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 9:46:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:58:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What are some things (outside of math and the laws of logic) that have been shown to exist (just as conclusively as science or better) thanks to philosophy (that could not be shown with science)?

I am currently trying to convince someone that philosophy is important, but he refuses to listen to the math and logic points.

Science says how things appear to be by observations and models. It doesn't say how things aught to be.

So you can use the value things like human rights, governments, justice systems ect...

I like the post of Welfare-Worker as well.

An interesting thing to look at might be the story of Presbyterian minister who studied Logic and Theology named Thomas Bayes. Bayesian theorem named after him.

Maybe you can argue that the hypothesis for solutions to problems come from philosophical inspection first.

Goedel's incompleteness theorem is from philosophy.

The problem of induction is a philosophical argument.

Philosophy and in particular epistemology leads work in computer languages, AI, ect..

But this reductionist to empiricism and acceptance of things only through a science book is a sad trend indeed. Especially since scientism is not how we make our day to day decisions.
YassineB
Posts: 1,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 11:36:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:58:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What are some things (outside of math and the laws of logic) that have been shown to exist (just as conclusively as science or better) thanks to philosophy (that could not be shown with science)?

I am currently trying to convince someone that philosophy is important, but he refuses to listen to the math and logic points.

- What?!!!!! Science is accepted BECAUSE of Philosophy. Science wouldn't be in the first place if it wasn't based on Philosophy. Your friend must be an ignoramus to think otherwise.

- To convince your friend that Philosophy is important tell him about the Modes of Reasoning. From which only Abductive Reasoning is Science related, the rest aren't. Such as:
> Deductive Reasoning (Structural Logic).
> Inductive Reasoning (Particular to Universal, with certainty).
> Analogical Reasoning (Particular to Particular).
> Successive Reasoning (Probabilistic & Statistical).
> Modal Reasoning (Particular & Universal Judgements).
> Defeasible Reasoning (Authority based).
(. . . etc).
=> All these are ways to establish the veracity of a Statement that do not require any Scientific Method.
Current Debates In Voting Period:

- The Qur'an We Have Today is Not What Muhammad Dictated Verbatim. Vs. @Envisage:
http://www.debate.org...

- Drawing Contest. Vs. @purpleduck:
http://www.debate.org...

"It is perfectly permissible to vote on sources without reading them" bluesteel.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 2:57:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 5:58:46 PM, SNP1 wrote:
What are some things (outside of math and the laws of logic) that have been shown to exist (just as conclusively as science or better) thanks to philosophy (that could not be shown with science)?

I am currently trying to convince someone that philosophy is important, but he refuses to listen to the math and logic points.

Since philosophy is such a fundamental discipline, it's inherently difficult to point to specific instances of its application in the real world. However, there are a few obvious examples of philosophy's application. The scientific method, first described by Aristotle, can be viewed as a philosophical approach to understanding the universe. As another example, the subconscious, first identified by Freud, can be viewed as a philosophical theory (although, it probably bears description as a psychological theory more than a philosophical one). A clear understanding of logic, which follows from philosophy, has been integral to the development of computer science, as well as other fields.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2015 4:01:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most philosophies don't work when implemented and put to the test.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%