• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Scientists vs. Philosophers

Philosophy has several different focuses/aims.

metaphysics can be seen as meaningless, which i think is what Wittgenstein was on about.
I think the ethical models learned and taught in philosophy are useful; i've used them to guide my own decisions. Not to mention the critical thinking, analytical thinking and other skills philosophy teaches you. Very helpful in breaking things down and making things more efficient, especially when logic is involved.

Kant wrote a great paper on Enlightenment and how reason/rationality revolutionized the way people think/were thinking. These things are very useful to know in science (ie. atomic bomb). Science and philosophy overlap all the time, same with linguistics, management, ethics and other things.
 
RobotRipping said:
Kant wrote a great paper on Enlightenment and how reason/rationality revolutionized the way people think/were thinking. These things are very useful to know in science (ie. atomic bomb). Science and philosophy overlap all the time, same with linguistics, management, ethics and other things.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of work by Kant easily available to me with just the internet, are there one or more papers (even other peoples summaries of Kant's work) that you would personally recommend as a starting point?

EDIT:Thankyou pysduck, I become increasingly aware of how valuable time(as we know it) is and will endeavor to use my own before others in the future
 
Last edited:
casualuser said:
Scientists and philosophers are one in the same. A more specific term for those many call scientists would be physical scientists while philosophers would be metaphysical scientists.
Click to expand...

No, Physical scientists refers specifically to: Physics (duh) Physical Cosmology, Astronomy&Astrophysics, Chemistry,Geology&Geophysics. Next is the Natural Sciences, although that still refers to specifically studying physical things in the sense of being touchable/material. Then there's stuff like computer science, economics, psychology, etc which deal with sort of conceptual abstractions/phenomena.

Metaphysical science doesn't really hold, all of the sciences/part of the definition of science is empiricism and (at least in principle) testable hypothesis. Bickering over eithcs, morals, God and anything of that sort is neither empirical or testable.
 
philosophers rarely deal in metaphysics and when they do they know they are posing questions rather than answering anything because empirically, none of it can be proven. Metaphysics isnt a science, even by definition, it attempts to go beyond physics/science to answer questions that are impossible to answer.

@lab-test monkey i'd get some books that translate kant better (like cliff's notes types of things) than reading his actual massive overly worded jargonistic masterpieces. Of all philosophers (aside from augustine) I think he is the worst writer on Earth. Though i don't read german so maybe that's not fair but the english translations are horrible tedious works to get through. I recommend understanding the concepts he put forth rather than digging into the critique of pure reason. A decent work by him is the 'Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals', it's interesting to say the least. I'd rather just read Hegel though, far more easy to read and more enjoyable. I love Kant but can't stand to figure out what he is going on about by myself. I wouldn't have read/understood any of his works if it weren't for being taught by a Professor who read Kant for most of his life.

The exception is his paper on Enlightenment, that's an easy read.
 
RobotRipping said:
philosophers rarely deal in metaphysics and when they do they know they are posing questions rather than answering anything because empirically, none of it can be proven. Metaphysics isnt a science, even by definition, it attempts to go beyond physics/science to answer questions that are impossible to answer.
Click to expand...

Philosophers ask more questions and purpose scenarios to be applied in theory to another subjects context, more often then provide answers to questions; in my opinion.
~

They theorize as to what is worth searching for evidence to support. Scientists, by trade, are not exempt from corruption or being corrupted to use their title as a source of influence to prove their theory as fact. Philosophers, on the other hand, have an influence over the minds of those they reach, and in that sense there is a great deal of responsibility, and chance for corruption, which can be disproven with scientific methods in some examples.

Religion, Spirituality, and Politics are all mediated by philosophy and often mythology; there are reoccurring patterns through out history, in our actions, and idealisms these are relevant in this day and age as well pertaining to the morals and ethics of society. I fail to see how that is of no importance to us all.
 
rangrz said:
Bickering over eithcs, morals, God and anything of that sort is neither empirical or testable.
Click to expand...
just as using notions such as causality, motion, relation, substance, quantity (which scientists are constantly doing) are neither empirical findeable... My point being that, for example, the whole branch of classical mechanics may be superfluous and empty if "motion" is not even metaphysically possible in the first place... So, why not take 5 minutes of philosophical reflection (and scientific modesty...) before one decides to spend one's life solving differential equations...

p.s. if some empiricist ever sees "causality" with a telescope or finds it somewhere in the material world, can you please send it to me by mail-package.
 
Last edited:
Psyduck said:
just as using notions such as causality, motion, relation, substance, quantity (which scientists are constantly doing) are neither empirical findeable... My point being that, for example, the whole branch of classical mechanics may be superfluous and empty if "motion" is not even metaphysically possible in the first place... So, why not take 5 minutes of philosophical reflection (and scientific modesty...) before one decides to spend one's life solving differential equations...

p.s. if some empiricist ever sees "causality" with a telescope or finds it somewhere in the material world, can you please send it to me by mail-package.
Click to expand...

Motion is not a metaphysical issue. Plus that it's possible can be shown even a priori with (relatively) simple geometric OR analysis/calc/integration approaches, and that should pass even philosophic inquiry as it's purely deductive logic.

and I like solving differential equations. I'd rather do that spend all day Making shit like "In the contextual paradigm of the pansubjectivist non-binary universe of mutlisexual pan-cultural society, an absolute imperative is that actors counter-synthesize textual works in order to deconstruct the institutionalistic fabrication of the conservation of electric charge in order to deoppress women in the post-neocolonialism social paradigm."

p.s. hit a watermelon with a bat to see causality (and the validity of classical mechanics) for yourself.

p.s.s. Even if you want to claim motion as being unphysical, instrumentalism with regard to the differential equations describing it still applies. The equations predict what is going to happen, and that is arguably the real value of them.
 
Rangrz: I think that you have an unnecessarily dismissive view of what philosophy is, partially because you focus on moral questions and religious debate.

Those focused on metaphysics (ie, ontology and epistemology) attempt to examine the fundamental properties of being (really, what the relevant entities, conditions, and interrelations are) and the means through which we know them. Here, philosophy informs how we might want to interpret scientific findings ontologically, the character of the objects of investigation, and the rules for inference from hypothesis testing.

For example, there are a few different interpretations of quantum mechanical behavior, each thus far empirically justified. Philosophy helps us consider the character of the world that mathematized theories describe and what the objects in this world might be.


rangrz said:
Scientists and engineers stay grounded in reality, and consider that ultimate question to be not even in principle answerable or testable, and therefore meaningless, with any discourse on it being patent nonsense and not even wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure, properly philosophical questions can't be empirically adjudicated; if they could be, they'd be scientific questions. However, that does not mean that they are meaningless...people still have a drive to know the answer to them (even if they a bit tragically never will).

ebola
 
ebola? said:
Rangrz: I think that you have an unnecessarily dismissive view of what philosophy is, partially because you focus on moral questions and religious debate.

Those focused on metaphysics (ie, ontology and epistemology) attempt to examine the fundamental properties of being (really, what the relevant entities, conditions, and interrelations are) and the means through which we know them. Here, philosophy informs how we might want to interpret scientific findings ontologically, the character of the objects of investigation, and the rules for inference from hypothesis testing.

For example, there are a few different interpretations of quantum mechanical behavior, each thus far empirically justified. Philosophy helps us consider the character of the world that mathematized theories describe and what the objects in this world might be.




Sure, properly philosophical questions can't be empirically adjudicated; if they could be, they'd be scientific questions. However, that does not mean that they are meaningless...people still have a drive to know the answer to them (even if they a bit tragically never will).

ebola
Click to expand...

None of the interpretations have any empirical evidence. That none of them can be shown false is true, but that's true about Russell's Teapot too. (I'm aware I'm using a philosopher to defend an "anti" philosophy position) But I'm not really anti-philosophy, I as I explained earlier see it useful in so far as exploring logic, reason and argument/evidence evaluation.
 
rangrz said:
None of the interpretations have any empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

Indeed; they can't. But some questions that are impossible to answer, speak to with empirical data, and/or apply technologically still matter to people; many want a fuller picture of "what is", beyond how our instruments and techniques work. Even if this is unattainable, it still matters and still has meaning.

Science: it works, bitches. But nothing demonstrates clearly that making things that work holds a monopoly on satisfying our drive for ontological meaning.

ebola
 
I see your point though I never meant it as a strict comparison of dictionary definitions. I was focusing more on the differences of the physical and the metaphysical with a more generalized definition of science; physical science being any organization of our physical reality into groups/laws/theories based on evidence(observable/experimental data) and metaphysical science being the organization of our metaphysical reality(i.e. ethics/morality, spirituality, ect.) into patterns/groups/theories based on observation and reasoned out extrapolations from those observations, which while arguably not "evidence" comparable to that of physical science(testable/measurable data), it's the best one will get in any discourse regarding metaphysics. I should have been more clear in my original post but I tend to ramble when discussing such topics and I wanted to keep it shorter. Overall I was just trying to offer a different perspective on the common distinction between the two fields.
 
ebola? said:
Indeed; they can't. But some questions that are impossible to answer, speak to with empirical data, and/or apply technologically still matter to people; many want a fuller picture of "what is", beyond how our instruments and techniques work. Even if this is unattainable, it still matters and still has meaning.

Science: it works, bitches. But nothing demonstrates clearly that making things that work holds a monopoly on satisfying our drive for ontological meaning.

ebola
Click to expand...

Perhaps I just find expending great deals of time and effort probing into questions that not only I do I not answer correctly, I could never even in concept, find an answer for to be unsatisfying. In a similar manner, already knowing that I *can't* possibly answer it makes the results I obtain meaningless to me. I could make anything up, posit it as an answer and be equally correct as anyone ever has been on the subject. So I have a hard time seeing meaningfullness in such works.
 
It took a little philosophy to discover gravity.

It is an absurd notion that all philosophical inquiry is meaningless, that is more of a defensive personal opinion. There is Deductive Reasoning, Logic, and Statistics that support the unsupported claims of a philosopher.
 
I already said I find deductive reasoning, logic and statistical methods (although they are not really philosophic) to be of value, and philosophy of value in terms of teaching them. The actual questions and answers arrived at I think are meaningless, but the techniques have value.
 
rangrz said:
Motion is not a metaphysical issue.
Click to expand...
yes it is,
- Parmenides vs. Heraclitus
- Zeno's paradox
- Plato vs. Aristotle
- Occassionalism vs. Cartesianism
- etc.

p.s. hit a watermelon with a bat to see causality (and the validity of classical mechanics) for yourself.
Click to expand...
Ok. I tried it. I see 1) a bat, 2) a watermelon, 3) a broken watermelon, 4) a sarcastic smile on my face... but, still, I nowhere saw "causality." Where in Space-time (x,y,z,t) can we find "causality" assuming all there is are just physical objects, i.e. a purely material world embodied in space-time.
 
I don't see why someone with decent intelligence couldn't combine them

I think it's more of a spectrum, like pretty much everything is, most just choose to be closer to one side or the other.

But if you think about it they have a lot of similar basic values
 
causality is something we humans impose on the universe; i wish i could back this up right now but i just woke up for class and it's all pure philosophy, mostly from Kant which is outdated but interesting. I remember in class my prof showing us that we see everything in frames, like a video is 24 frames per second and that we figure out time from this but time itself, isn't 'real', just something we also impose on the world to get a better understanding of it. This is not my view in particular but Kant's, but i agree, just can't remember half of it now so will have to reread it later.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-spacetime/ that's a good start at least.
 
I guess it depends on what you believe philosophy is. Modern philosophy gives what I believe real philosophy to be a bad name; it has degenerated into word games and academic debates that lead nowhere. That isn't what I personally believe philosophy should be about. Arguing over semantics, language, philosophers who died hundreds of years ago, it's just chasing your own tail. No wonder why people think philosophy is a bit weak.. it has been taken out of the domain of common man and placed into an academic environment where only those with higher IQ can debate the language and meanings. Once philosophy reaches that stage it is no longer philosophy but an elitist circle jerk.

Philosophy is more important than science because only through it can one get to the Truth. Science can only deal with relative truth. That's not to give science a bad rap, it is a very useful tool. But as psyduck said "science without philosophy is blind". You only need to look at the past 100 years of history to see the kind of madness that results when science runs way ahead of where we are spiritually as a society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top