What is philosophy to you?

[belligerent drunk]

You might consider that the reason science and philosophy split is because they generally try to understand different sorts of questions.

I can't fully agree with that. Both science and philosophy try to explain reality, do they not? Except one is based mainly on observations, the other on rational thinking.

By the way, in one of the earlier comments you said that as opposed to philosophy, science tries to accumulate positive evidence. That is not how the scientific method works. In essence, the scientific method also tries to disprove hypotheses. If it fails to do so based on unbiased observations (stark contrast to saying it collects positive evidence - it doesn't), then the hypothesis is accepted as a theory that has not yet been disproven.

I agree with Phil in that science has taken over from philosophy in certain fields. For example, we've been able to answer the chicken and egg question with the theory of evolution, and the answer is really satisfying. Philosophy alone could have never arrived at such an answer.

 

[sigmond]

That was a cute thought experiment (one aspect of philosophy that can be useful in my opinion) but still quite lacking. Just because these cruel scientists enslaved Mary to a black and white room so she cannot see red, does not mean the knowledge base of mankind does not as well. They picked the worst person to impart all the knowledge of red upon, plain and simple.

cute video indeed, i posted it as shameless plug for this guy Caspar Hare. you come up with that argument yourself? i cannot tell if you're sarcastic or not, if not, i don't think you understood the thought experiment.

 

[drug_mentor]

I can't fully agree with that. Both science and philosophy try to explain reality, do they not? Except one is based mainly on observations, the other on rational thinking.

There are different domains of reality. For example, how would science answer how a just society ought to be structured? What makes an action morally acceptable? Whether identity can be conceived of coherently? There are elements of reality that cannot be explained by observation, just as there are elements of reality which cannot be explained by rationalism alone.

I did say generally, there is obviously overlap in the questions. However, when something is squarely in the empirical domain philosophers usually leave that to scientists.

By the way, in one of the earlier comments you said that as opposed to philosophy, science tries to accumulate positive evidence. That is not how the scientific method works. In essence, the scientific method also tries to disprove hypotheses. If it fails to do so based on unbiased observations (stark contrast to saying it collects positive evidence - it doesn't), then the hypothesis is accepted as a theory that has not yet been disproven.

I am aware of this, this is actually a relatively recent improvement that came about due to the insight of philosopher Karl Popper. It is one perfect example of why philosophy is not obsolete, even if you choose to measure it in terms of its contribution to scientific progress.

Perhaps I could have chosen my words more carefully. I was trying to be brief and I thought the way I worded it captured what I intended to say. The point I was trying to make is that generally science is the project of accumulating positive facts. The only utility in falsifying a theory is so that one does not hold a flawed theory to be a fact. By the way, I am aware that my choice of language here is less than perfect, skepticism is a central part of science, my choice of words fails to capture this completely for the sake of brevity and comprehensibility to those who are not familiar with the scientific method.

The approach in philosophy in many cases is distinct from this, although admittedly this is not always the case. In many cases philosophy does not attempt to find an absolute answer to a question, it considers the range of answers that can be given and weighs the strengths and weaknesses of each view. Meta-ethics is one example of a field where this is particularly true.

The distinction I tried to draw in my initial post is far from perfect, but what I was trying to capture is that there is something noticeably distinct about the approach to knowledge that the two disciplines take which can't be boiled down to observation vs rationalism. We could probably go back and forth all day trying to pin down this nuanced distinction.

I agree with Phil in that science has taken over from philosophy in certain fields. For example, we've been able to answer the chicken and egg question with the theory of evolution, and the answer is really satisfying. Philosophy alone could have never arrived at such an answer.

I never said science hadn't taken over from philosophy in certain fields, I argued that science hasn't made philosophy obsolete.

I actually believe that in certain scientific fields some of what is being passed off as science is actually unacknowledged philosophy. To my mind, a lot of what theoretical physicists and cosmologists are doing is actually philosophy of science.

I am not going to drag this thread further off-topic, but if anyone is interested in picking up on that final point I defended this view about 4 months ago here and here. Unfortunately it did not generate much interest at the time.

 

[belligerent drunk]

To be fair, your statements are among the most clear and well-written here. Certainly a lot better than mine. I was just, again, trying to clarify a point or two for the sake of discussion.

I actually believe that in certain scientific fields some of what is being passed off as science is actually unacknowledged philosophy. To my mind, a lot of what theoretical physicists and cosmologists are doing is actually philosophy of science.

You have a point here. It is true that many ideas in theoretical physics are hardly testable or falsifiable, and I don't really know what else to say other than "well, it's the best we can come up with at this point". If you want to be strict about it, then calling it science may be misleading or incorrect. However, I still maintain that people developing these ideas/hypotheses are still focusing on evidence as much as possible, which is actually very important in my opinion. In the case of untestable ideas, they're still not just products of pure imagination. They're where experimental evidence has led us to. I said this once or twice before, but I'll repeat myself. If a model agrees with all (or most) the evidence we have, then you're (or at least I am) willing to accept that the unverifiable part of the model is likely to be correct, or at least close to being correct, too. Because it follows from the rest of the model.

Yeah, the thread has gone somewhat off-topic, but I enjoy the discussion - it's been very fruitful. So I don't mind.

 

[Kittycat5]

cute video indeed, i posted it as shameless plug for this guy Caspar Hare. you come up with that argument yourself? i cannot tell if you're sarcastic or not, if not, i don't think you understood the thought experiment.

Yes a bit sarcastic. I understand it fine, though. Its just garbage. Even the coffee arguement. It may apply to the individual certainly not everyone. See my second post about arguement and answers. Im sure he dumbed it down a bit, but still, its not hard to find fault in this end of the arguement.

 

[sigmond]

i don't care to get into it and i believe the argument has even been refuted or rejected by the individual who came up with it. that aside, i could form an argument that could apply to all individuals using a meteor impacting the earth. maybe i'll get to it someday..

carry on..

 

[drug_mentor]

That was a cute thought experiment (one aspect of philosophy that can be useful in my opinion) but still quite lacking. Just because these cruel scientists enslaved Mary to a black and white room so she cannot see red, does not mean the knowledge base of mankind does not as well. They picked the worst person to impart all the knowledge of red upon, plain and simple.

I think you are missing the point here. The point is not that humankind doesn't have knowledge of red, or what it is like to experience red. The point is that, by virtue of the fact science cannot communicate what it is like to experience seeing the colour red, science cannot give a complete account of what there is to know about the colour red. This provides a negative answer to the question posed in the title, i.e. science, can it teach us everything?

You say they picked the worst person to impart all the knowledge about red upon, but it wouldn't matter if they imparted all the scientific knowledge of red to someone who had seen red, that persons knowledge of what it is like to see red would not be derived from any scientific knowledge.

Yes a bit sarcastic. I understand it fine, though. Its just garbage. Even the coffee arguement. It may apply to the individual certainly not everyone. See my second post about arguement and answers. Im sure he dumbed it down a bit, but still, its not hard to find fault in this end of the arguement.

It comes across like you don't understand the argument as well as you think you do. The conclusion is not that people can't know what coffee tastes like, it is that there is no way for them to learn what it is like through the language of science.

Do you believe that science can give individuals knowledge of what it qualitatively feels like to have particular phenomenological experiences which they have not themselves experienced?

You have a point here. It is true that many ideas in theoretical physics are hardly testable or falsifiable, and I don't really know what else to say other than "well, it's the best we can come up with at this point". If you want to be strict about it, then calling it science may be misleading or incorrect. However, I still maintain that people developing these ideas/hypotheses are still focusing on evidence as much as possible, which is actually very important in my opinion. In the case of untestable ideas, they're still not just products of pure imagination. They're where experimental evidence has led us to.

Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy which is concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. A synonym for implication is inference. I accept everything you have said in the passage just quoted, and with all of what you say in mind, it seems to me that what we are describing is the process of figuring what can be inferred from scientific evidence. If the process of figuring out the implications of scientific evidence leads you to generate a falsifiable theory then that qualifies as science, if you come up with an unfalsifiable theory then it is philosophy of science.

I realise that you have not argued with this point, but I really wanted to emphasise the distinction. I don't think philosophy gets the respect it deserves in this day and age, the average person seems very quick to overlook the wealth of contributions philosophy has made and declare that it is obsolete.

 

[Kittycat5]

No, b_d, dont give in on the theoretical physics being philosophy. It is simply not true. It makes me angry because the more philosophically inclined tend to look at cutting edge physics as overlapping with their field, when it really is simply a result of trying to actually solve problems with mathematics that tells them there is truth in their theories. The popularization of physics to the layman has a big role in this thinking. But the working physicist would scoff if you called their work philosophy.

D_m, I am nowhere near youre level when it comes to philosophy but is not experiment part of science? The simple act of drinking a cup of coffee could be considered an experiment, validating all that was taught.

 

[sigmond]

Qualia

 

[drug_mentor]

D_m, I am nowhere near youre level when it comes to philosophy but is not experiment part of science? The simple act of drinking a cup of coffee could be considered an experiment, validating all that was taught.

Experiment is part of the scientific method, but I think it would be a stretch to call drinking a cup of coffee for the first time an experiment. If you want to argue along those lines it would seem to commit you to the view that everyone is doing science every time they have a new experience, that seems highly implausible to me. I think most people, including most scientists, would agree with me here.

The wider point is that a scientist couldn't construct a study where people drank coffee for the first time, take some measurement on an instrument and impart this knowledge to you. The only way for you to know what coffee tastes like is for you to taste it yourself, if you accept that doing this is not science then it follows from these two premises that science cannot teach you what coffee tastes like.

 

[belligerent drunk]

it is that there is no way for them to learn what it is like through the language of science.

Do you believe that science can give individuals knowledge of what it qualitatively feels like to have particular phenomenological experiences which they have not themselves experienced?

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what science has to do with it. The inability to deliver such "knowledge" as what coffee tastes like or what red looks like is due to limitations in language, not limitations in science. Science is the collection of knowledge about our world we have, but we use language to convey it. There are simply no words to describe colors for what they really are, or what tastes are, without using analogies, but that already assumes previous relevant first-hand experience.

@ Kittycat: no, I'm not agreeing that theoretical physics is philosophy and I explained why in my last post. To me it is still science, because the ideas ARE based on empirical evidence, even though they may be practically untestable (to our current knowledge at least). I'm just saying that I see why drug_mentor has a point, and if one wants to be strict about definitions, it's possible to say such things. However, I'm not big on semantics, so I just won't argue with that.

 

[Kittycat5]

I understand. And I understand its a thought experiment. I get all that. Im using what is given, in the context of this arguement. Tasting coffee would be the experiment of most value if this whole setup was plausible. For everyday life, of course its not science. But we arent (at least Im not) arguing does experience tell us more than science, but can science tell us everything. In this case, and many others yes. Youre points about structuring a just society are a far greater foible that I would have to consider.

 

[Nixiam]

Physics vs Quantum Mechanics!

In one corner we have PhysX weighing at the force of gravity exreted on him!

In the other we have Quanta M., weighing at...

... Atomic mass? Wait fuck thats chemistry. Aghh, whats a good QM equation... Photon momentum is p= hf/c = h/(lambda)?

Both are just fields of study. Truly, quantum physics has proven to be fruitful in it's life span. We can fire sub atomic particles without seeing them. If it isn't obvious enough I'm not educated in QM or even it's introduction. I'm okay with HS physics and chem.

Calling one better than the other or one being philosophy is just backwards. QM Is just beginning really.



I haven't woken up yet.

 

[Kittycat5]

You need some phis and psis to make a good QM equation.

 

[drug_mentor]

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what science has to do with it. The inability to deliver such "knowledge" as what coffee tastes like or what red looks like is due to limitations in language, not limitations in science. Science is the collection of knowledge about our world we have, but we use language to convey it. There are simply no words to describe colors for what they really are, or what tastes are, without using analogies, but that already assumes previous relevant first-hand experience.

I think it is interesting you identified language as the problem, I don't explicitly disagree, but I think there might be more to it than that, I would have to reflect on that a bit.

The point is there is knowledge humans are capable of having which can't be acquired through science. You can argue that the limitation derives from the language science is using, but ultimately science is still incapable of communicating this knowledge. Nobody is saying it is a problem which is unique to science, but it does undermine the view that science can teach us everything.

@ Kittycat: no, I'm not agreeing that theoretical physics is philosophy and I explained why in my last post. To me it is still science, because the ideas ARE based on empirical evidence, even though they may be practically untestable (to our current knowledge at least). .

I am confused, do you think philosophy can't be based on empirical evidence? If not, then what is your objection to calling unfalsifiable theories philosophy of science? Do you have a coherent argument as to why it is more appropriately called science than philosophy of science? I feel like I have made a pretty strong case for my view, and nothing in your response has really undermined that case.

Calling one better than the other or one being philosophy is just backwards. QM Is just beginning really.

It would be nice if you could defend your viewpoint here, as opposed to just making an unqualified assertion that my view is "backwards". I advanced an argument in favour of my own position, it is intellectually dishonest to fail to engage with my argument at all and assert that I am wrong.

EDIT Somehow I missed this:

No, b_d, dont give in on the theoretical physics being philosophy. It is simply not true. It makes me angry because the more philosophically inclined tend to look at cutting edge physics as overlapping with their field, when it really is simply a result of trying to actually solve problems with mathematics that tells them there is truth in their theories. The popularization of physics to the layman has a big role in this thinking. But the working physicist would scoff if you called their work philosophy.

Would you care to tell me why it isn't true? You promised a response 4 months ago that I am still waiting on. It should be noted that I am specifically claiming some aspects of theoretical physics are more correctly called philosophy of science than science. Contemporary philosophy of science requires a serious amount of science literacy, I would expect anyone of influence in the field to hold a BSc or higher science qualification. For this reason your objection makes little sense.

Moreover, it seems that your reasons for rejecting my position are entirely sentimental. Please prove me wrong and actually engage with my argument, instead of simply declaring to other people that I am wrong.

 

[Nixiam]

ur welcum

 

[Kittycat5]

Im sorry, I dont remember that from 4 months ago d_m. What thread?

Lets start by you telling me what aspects you think fall better into philosophy of science.

 

[drug_mentor]

It was the Climate change thread, this was my initial post, which you did respond to, I responded here.

My argument is as follows:
1. Any theory which lacks an essential component of a scientific theory is not a scientific theory
2. Falsifiability is an essential component of any scientific theory.
C1. Any theory which is not falsifiable is not a scientific theory.
3. Both science and philosophy of science generate theories which aim to explain scientific observations.
4. If a theory aims to explain scientific observations, and does not otherwise fall under the category of science, then that theory is within the domain of philosophy of science.
C2. Unfalisifiable theories which aim to explain scientific observations are philosophy of science, not science.
5. There are certain theories within physics and cosmology which seek to explain scientific observations, but which are not falsifiable. (String theory and dark matter spring to mind)
C3. These unfalsifiable theories within physics and cosmology are philosophy of science.

 

[Kittycat5]

I remember now. I need to consider more than what I already stated and will post a follow up. I will state that I do not believe that these things are unfalsifiable though. More later if I actually truly believe that.

 

[drug_mentor]

I await your response.

Let me quickly point out that to defend the view that the theories are not unfalsifiable you would need to suggest how they could be falsified. If you have a way to falsify string theory I imagine you could make quite a name for yourself.