Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Science and Philosophy

bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 9:31:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Shab recently wrote, in another thread on the site, "I don't consider natural science to be distinct from philosophy at all. Science is just applied philosophy."

Do you agree? Are science and philosophy distinct, or the same, or is one a branch of the other? Obviously, there are parallels, but there due seem to be relevant differences, at least at first glance. What are your thoughts?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 9:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 9:31:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Shab recently wrote, in another thread on the site, "I don't consider natural science to be distinct from philosophy at all. Science is just applied philosophy."

Do you agree? Are science and philosophy distinct, or the same, or is one a branch of the other? Obviously, there are parallels, but there due seem to be relevant differences, at least at first glance. What are your thoughts?

I think they are continuous.
Sitting in a lecture sometimes feels strangely similar to reading some book. But I cannot really describe this feeling.

The philosophy of science is of course very much related to science and I count some books from the philosophy of science among the most interesting works an ongoing science student could read.

I forgot who, but I recall someone once said one cannot be a good scientist without also being a good philosopher and vice versa.
I was astonished to find out how many non-scientific assumptions are made in common claims like that a theory is "falsifiable".
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 10:01:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or that empiricism probably undermines science.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2015 11:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science began as a branch of Philosophy (Natural Philosophy), but has evolved so much that it should no longer be considered such. The fundamental difference is that Science is results-driven, while Philosophy is not.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Yonko
Posts: 227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 12:49:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future).

SM2 said: "The fundamental difference is that Science is results-driven, while Philosophy is not."

That's not the difference between Science and Philosophy -- that's the difference between concept and concept-application. Like I said, science is an attempt at applying one system of philosophical concepts (i.e. empiricist epistemology) to the search for knowledge about reality. Just like how engineering is the application of math to solving real-world problems.

Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

Yeah, and the epistemological basis of science is, indeed, untestable.
One cannot empirically confirm that the scientific method is the best method for investigating reality.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:31:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 12:49:50 AM, Yonko wrote:
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future).

SM2 said: "The fundamental difference is that Science is results-driven, while Philosophy is not."

That's not the difference between Science and Philosophy -- that's the difference between concept and concept-application.

I did say he was "close" to being right, not that he was right. I then went on to propose my theory as to the difference between the two.

One cannot empirically confirm that the scientific method is the best method for investigating reality.

This could be said of any discipline. People investigate reality through art, through history, through economics, etc. I don't, therefore, see the point of this statement.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 3:35:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science is close enough to philosophy to make scientists uncomfortable (because they are driven by a whole host of philosophical assUmptions they probably can't defend) and philosophers uncomfortable (because they might have to get up out of the armchair).

Yes I'm aware those are generalizations.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:01:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 9:31:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Shab recently wrote, in another thread on the site, "I don't consider natural science to be distinct from philosophy at all. Science is just applied philosophy."

- In that sense, so is law, history, politics, psychology, music, mathematics, arts... Which makes the suggestion quite absurd. Applied 'something' refers generally to some inter-disciplinary subject. That is, philosophy of science might be considered applied philosophy, but not science itself.

Do you agree?

- No, that's ludicrous.

Are science and philosophy distinct, or the same, or is one a branch of the other?

- I can't imagine how no matter how stretched. Clearly, such a claim stems from ignorance of one of either discipline, science or philosophy.

Obviously, there are parallels, but there due seem to be relevant differences, at least at first glance. What are your thoughts?

- This is the most preposterous thing I've heard this month, probably even this year.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:20:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think that if you ask 10 people what philosophy is and the same 10 people what science is you'd get 20 different answers and with some mixing and matching you'd get that science was part of philosophy, philosophy is part of science, they are the same and they are different and perhaps more comparisons besides!

But it does seem to me that they can't be completely separate because there are grey areas that can be considered science or considerered philosophy. I'm thinking of things like the Copehagen interpretation of QM and Everett's notion of the multi-verse.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/17/2015 9:31:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Shab recently wrote, in another thread on the site, "I don't consider natural science to be distinct from philosophy at all. Science is just applied philosophy."

Do you agree? Are science and philosophy distinct, or the same, or is one a branch of the other? Obviously, there are parallels, but there due seem to be relevant differences, at least at first glance. What are your thoughts?

This is a very philosophical question. The question is whether or not philosophy and science are related to another....

I don't know what I think, to be honest. I can understand how some people would think that science is a branch of philosophy, because it came from empiricism and shares alot of similarities to philosophy, however, science and philosophy are also very different.

In any case, I think that philosophy/logic are some of the most basic aspects of human knowledge. Science doesn't work if the needed assumptions aren't accepted in the first place... which is what philosophy is. On the other hand, if philosophy is the most basic, then can't we say that *everything* that deals with human knowledge is a branch of philosophy, regardless of how different it seems?

Once again, this is a categorizing argument. And to be honest, I probably lean to the side that they are both in the same genus, but not in the same species (in the logic sense).
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:33:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 3:35:34 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
Science is close enough to philosophy to make scientists uncomfortable (because they are driven by a whole host of philosophical assUmptions they probably can't defend) and philosophers uncomfortable (because they might have to get up out of the armchair).

Yes I'm aware those are generalizations.

Haha. What if you like both? XD :P

This is very true though. I've never heard one of my professors, or any student talk about the philosophical assumptions science makes. And the more I learn about science, the more you realize... it makes a lot of assumptions. But science minded people just don't think about that.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:34:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 4:01:01 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:31:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Shab recently wrote, in another thread on the site, "I don't consider natural science to be distinct from philosophy at all. Science is just applied philosophy."

- In that sense, so is law, history, politics, psychology, music, mathematics, arts... Which makes the suggestion quite absurd. Applied 'something' refers generally to some inter-disciplinary subject. That is, philosophy of science might be considered applied philosophy, but not science itself.


Ah, I see you beat me to that objection, lol. I literally just the same thing XD

Do you agree?

- No, that's ludicrous.

Are science and philosophy distinct, or the same, or is one a branch of the other?

- I can't imagine how no matter how stretched. Clearly, such a claim stems from ignorance of one of either discipline, science or philosophy.

Obviously, there are parallels, but there due seem to be relevant differences, at least at first glance. What are your thoughts?

- This is the most preposterous thing I've heard this month, probably even this year.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:18:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

You're assuming those questions are untestable.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 4:01:01 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:31:51 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Shab recently wrote, in another thread on the site, "I don't consider natural science to be distinct from philosophy at all. Science is just applied philosophy."

- In that sense, so is law, history, politics, psychology, music, mathematics, arts... Which makes the suggestion quite absurd.

I agree. I think that every field is a subcategory of philosophy. Why is that absurd?
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:55:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think philosophy pertains to the timeless, fundamental questions. It's not really about specifics. So while science uses philosophy, and is heavily intertwined with it, it has aspects that, I think, don't fall within the scope of philosophy. For instance, the latest technique to estimate the age of a rock isn't itself philosophy, but it came out of the scientific method which is philosophy.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:13:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 4:55:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I think philosophy pertains to the timeless, fundamental questions. It's not really about specifics. So while science uses philosophy, and is heavily intertwined with it, it has aspects that, I think, don't fall within the scope of philosophy. For instance, the latest technique to estimate the age of a rock isn't itself philosophy, but it came out of the scientific method which is philosophy.

Tell me exactly where the line is drawn. Why is it the role of philosophy to find the number of fundamental substances but not to find the number of fundamental atoms? That seems like a totally arbitrary distinction.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:48:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:13:24 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 4:55:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I think philosophy pertains to the timeless, fundamental questions. It's not really about specifics. So while science uses philosophy, and is heavily intertwined with it, it has aspects that, I think, don't fall within the scope of philosophy. For instance, the latest technique to estimate the age of a rock isn't itself philosophy, but it came out of the scientific method which is philosophy.

Tell me exactly where the line is drawn. Why is it the role of philosophy to find the number of fundamental substances but not to find the number of fundamental atoms? That seems like a totally arbitrary distinction.

Of course it's arbitrary. "Philosophy" is just a linguistic placeholder, and its meaning is whatever we decide. I don't need to precisely delineate the meaning of philosophy, just as you don't have to specify exactly when a book becomes a poem, a child becomes an adult, or an imbecile such as yourself embarrasses himself in front of the whole world.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:51:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:48:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/18/2015 5:13:24 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 4:55:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
I think philosophy pertains to the timeless, fundamental questions. It's not really about specifics. So while science uses philosophy, and is heavily intertwined with it, it has aspects that, I think, don't fall within the scope of philosophy. For instance, the latest technique to estimate the age of a rock isn't itself philosophy, but it came out of the scientific method which is philosophy.

Tell me exactly where the line is drawn. Why is it the role of philosophy to find the number of fundamental substances but not to find the number of fundamental atoms? That seems like a totally arbitrary distinction.

Of course it's arbitrary. "Philosophy" is just a linguistic placeholder, and its meaning is whatever we decide. I don't need to precisely delineate the meaning of philosophy, just as you don't have to specify exactly when a book becomes a poem, a child becomes an adult, or an imbecile such as yourself embarrasses himself in front of the whole world.

"I don't need to know the meanings of the words I use, since my mind is an intellectual wasteland devoid of any sensical content, without any room for concepts which actually have any significance or communicative power."
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:11:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 5:51:40 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
"I don't need to know the meanings of the words I use, since my mind is an intellectual wasteland devoid of any sensical content, without any room for concepts which actually have any significance or communicative power."

I don't buy into this objectivist thing where people can't use words unless they can literally provide a definition of them. Definitions just help people to use the word. I can't provide a technical definition of the word "the" but that doesn't mean I can't use it.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
fromantle
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:26:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Philosophy is the way we look at the world , our formulated viewpoint, and there are tremendous variations among individuals.
Science is the way we investigate the world. Intially it was with our senses and by experimentation, but now we have greatly extended senses too see what we could not see and detect what we could not detect.
Science is by far the most disturbing influence and its effects are far reaching.
Like us all scientists are philosophers they ponder the si
gnificence of all their discoveries.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:36:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 4:18:55 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

You're assuming those questions are untestable.

They are untestable.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:42:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Dylancatlow wrote:
I think philosophy pertains to the timeless, fundamental questions.

Dylancatlow wrote:
"Philosophy" is just a linguistic placeholder, and its meaning is whatever we decide.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:50:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:42:48 PM, kp98 wrote:
Dylancatlow wrote:
I think philosophy pertains to the timeless, fundamental questions.

Dylancatlow wrote:
"Philosophy" is just a linguistic placeholder, and its meaning is whatever we decide.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds

I don't see the conflict. According to my usage of the term, philosophy and science aren't the same thing.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:51:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:36:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/18/2015 4:18:55 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

You're assuming those questions are untestable.

They are untestable.

Here's a passage that I think is worth quoting in length.

"in both metaphysics and science, the central task of the theorist is to construct models. Models are theoretical structures involving a set of basic representational devices (new terms and concepts, and principles involving these concepts) that can account for a set of data including but not limited to those observations we may make. In both science and metaphysics, different models may adequately represent the domain under consideration. For example, in physics, a theorist may use a model using the concept of a field to represent the kinds of entities there are (as in electromagnetic theory). Another theorist may use a model that involves only the representation of particles. Similarly in metaphysics one theorist may use a model that represents the world in terms of the concepts of particular and universal. Another may use a model that rejects the concept of a universal and conceives everything as a more or less complex collection of tropes. Different models may succeed to better or worse degrees at capturing the empirical data.
[...]
Empirical methods may take us as far as a certain point. But there will always be rival models equally capable of explaining the empirical data. The scientist must supplement empirical criteria with the use of theoretical criteria like simplicity, unificatory power, internal and external consistency, and fruitfulness (ability to generate further hypotheses) to decide between models. Thus when the philosopher looks at rival metaphysical theories and assesses them on the basis of criteria like which is simpler, which is consistent with other things she believes, and so on, she is not applying a kind of methodology that is different from that used by scientists themselves" - Alyssa Ney, Metaphysics an Introduction, p.134f
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 6:55:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:51:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/18/2015 6:36:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/18/2015 4:18:55 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

You're assuming those questions are untestable.

They are untestable.

Here's a passage that I think is worth quoting in length.

This difference here is that in science, new knowledge and data can always be put forth to disprove or confirm existing models. In philosophy, we may point out objections, but there is never the possibility for new raw data. We always have the same data to work with, and no model can ever be fully disproven.

At the very least, your quote only shows that science, in some areas or at some levels, bleeds into philosophy, and vice versa. But this is true of every discipline--there is always cross-over.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 7:04:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:55:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/18/2015 6:51:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/18/2015 6:36:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/18/2015 4:18:55 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

You're assuming those questions are untestable.

They are untestable.

Here's a passage that I think is worth quoting in length.

This difference here is that in science, new knowledge and data can always be put forth to disprove or confirm existing models.
You already assume this is possible. I have some doubts about that.

In philosophy, we may point out objections, but there is never the possibility for new raw data. We always have the same data to work with,
I consider modal logic to be one of the things that clearly represent "something new".
Further, scientific discoveries very much are new data philosophers, too, make use of.

and no model can ever be fully disproven.
Same goes for science.

At the very least, your quote only shows that science, in some areas or at some levels, bleeds into philosophy, and vice versa. But this is true of every discipline--there is always cross-over.
I guess that supports Shab's notion.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 7:08:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 7:04:39 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/18/2015 6:55:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
This difference here is that in science, new knowledge and data can always be put forth to disprove or confirm existing models.
You already assume this is possible. I have some doubts about that.

Okay.

Further, scientific discoveries very much are new data philosophers, too, make use of.

In some areas of philosophy, but not for philosophy in general.

and no model can ever be fully disproven.
Same goes for science.

I disagree. Models can be amended to reflect new data, but new data can utterly disprove models. What if, for instance, we discovered that on some planets, things floated for no apparent reason. This kind of data could disprove the theory of gravity.

At the very least, your quote only shows that science, in some areas or at some levels, bleeds into philosophy, and vice versa. But this is true of every discipline--there is always cross-over.
I guess that supports Shab's notion.

Not really. I think there are clear separations between the two in general, even if there may be specific examples that are ambiguous.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 7:21:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 6:55:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/18/2015 6:51:17 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 10/18/2015 6:36:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/18/2015 4:18:55 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
At 10/18/2015 12:17:41 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/17/2015 9:40:29 PM, Yonko wrote:
I think it's exactly what Shab said it was -- the application of an empiricist epistemological mindset to the task of investigating reality.

I am not so sure I agree. I think SM2 gets very close to the difference between philosophy and science. Science is about the search for some verifiable truth. While it doesn't always get there, it's theories are almost always testable (theoretically, actually, or in the future). Philosophy differs from science in that it is more concerned with untestable questions, such as, for example, "what is moral."

You're assuming those questions are untestable.

They are untestable.

Here's a passage that I think is worth quoting in length.

This difference here is that in science, new knowledge and data can always be put forth to disprove or confirm existing models.
There is no such thing as "new data." All facts which are possibly true are possibly true eternally. Scientists *discover* data that was always there, not make it, in much the same way that a philosopher may discover an argument which was previously unheard of. Neither process involves any creation of new facts.
and no model can ever be fully disproven.
All false models inherently collapse into contradiction. All true models collapse into tautology.
At the very least, your quote only shows that science, in some areas or at some levels, bleeds into philosophy, and vice versa. But this is true of every discipline--there is always cross-over.

Just because it's true of every disipline doesn't mean that it's somehow less significant. Science is entirely predicated on philosophy - you cannot conceive of any part of science apart from philosophy.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz