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

Scientists vs. Philosophers

akautonomics

akautonomics

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
91
Location
T mothafuckin dot
Scientists love knowledge, and philosophers love wisdom.

Scientists build things, philosophers build ideas

Scientists answer the question "How?", and philosophers answer "Why?"
 
My dear,
Scientists answer "why".
Engineers answer "How"

Philosophers talk about how reality is subjective and how it's unethical to paint your door green.

Scientists and engineers can't hear them cause the philosopher is sitting in his armchair, the scientist and the engineer are 100,000s of kilometers away saying "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
 
How, scientist, do scientists answer why? I believe it is with an answer suited more to the question "How"

For example, How am I alive: physiology, evolution, genetics, physics, chemistry all explain this
Why am I alive: Some sort of end purpose (to be determined as one lives) according to Plato. To carry out our duty according to Kant (only, one, Love, according to Camus). Only one answers "How".Cogito ergo sum. But Descartes was a scientist anyway.
 
No, a scientist answers why putting some Plutonium in a tube and rapidly compressing it causes it to go superprompt critical and incinerate a city in a Japan.

An engineer figures out how to make the ball of plutonium, the tube and how to compress it, working in the constraints the scientist gives.

Philosophers debate the morality of doing it, safe and comfortable in their overstuffed armchairs.
 
You're missing one important point. In order for Why to really be answered, it will follow back through a chain of causation. Why does plutonium have those properties? Why are electrons attracted to nuclei? Why does the electroweak force affect the universe? And eventually leads back to a question only attempted to be answered by philosophers.

The how question is answered both by scientists (How do electrons interact with nuclei, How is oxygen carried to cells, how fast does light travel) and engineers, who use the answers to fabricate physical objects, they are scientific craftsmen. And a superior breed of people.

And regarding morality, it's only a subsection of philosophy, which isn't really very popular to debate anymore
 
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.

And yes, we are a superior breed of human.
 
Well then, why don't you grab your pipe, a snifter of brandy,sit in your armchair and dictate to us the meaningfulness of answering a question that can not in principle ever be empiricalally confirmed?
 
Oh, I'm no philosopher. I'm a scientist. But I respect philosophers because they explore the depths of their minds and encourage that in their students. And debating ideas (including "not even wrong" ones) is more fun to me than debating who's got the fastest space ship or the shiniest laptop or the biggest cyborg-enhanced dick. lol!
 
But all lines of inquiry debate ideas. We can debate electroweak symmetry breaking if you want. Or the approach to building a gas cooled fast breeder reactor.

But then at least we'd be able to go confirm our ideas after.
NSFW:

(Indeed, did the class not debate which molecules would have chiral centers today in your class?)


But most philosophic questions don't have positively verifiable answers, and are thus reduced to meaningless nonsense in my view.
 
i see them as the polar opposites that need each other.

as shown here:
NSFW:

ws0du9.jpg

 
i guess rangrz would agree with Wittgenstein in his Tractatus lol i don't think that solved all of the philosophical problems though. After reading his Philosophical Investigations i don't think Wiitgenstein was satisfied with it either.
 
“philosophy stands in the same relation to the study of the actual world as masturbation to sexual love.”

- A famous philosopher :P

I think I agree with PiP. Scientists can be philosophers and vice versa, but they are very different areas of interest. Philosophers ponder the subjective, moral implications of life while scientists seek to understand it's objective mechanics. Philosophers debate ethics and attitudes towards living, scientists debate calculable data that objectively explains the world around us.

Apples and oranges.
 
rangrz said:
But most philosophic questions don't have positively verifiable answers, and are thus reduced to meaningless nonsense in my view.
Click to expand...

Philosophic questions don't have any inherent meaning, but the answers to those questions do, as they tend to dictate our day-to-day life choices. Certainly there are some futile philosophical aims (like "What is Evil?", "Does God Exist?", etc etc) but since the entire goal of philosophy is to inspire 'thought' (something lacking in the world), even those have their value. I would never study philosophy academically, but to say that philosophy itself is meaningless is dismissive.
 
Bardeaux said:
“philosophy stands in the same relation to the study of the actual world as masturbation to sexual love.”

- A famous philosopher :P

I think I agree with PiP. Scientists can be philosophers and vice versa, but they are very different areas of interest. Philosophers ponder the subjective, moral implications of life while scientists seek to understand it's objective mechanics. Philosophers debate ethics and attitudes towards living, scientists debate calculable data that objectively explains the world around us.

Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my implication, but it is what just happened. I don't draw a distinction between "scientists" and "philosophers" as seperate entities, they are methods of our thinking or a process we utilize. I dont like the thought of a world without science and technology, both of which greatly pertain to our lives sustenance and means of communication. But the thought of life and communicating with others using no imagination is not one I like to entertain; it just keeps going round & round from there.
:-)
 
I think philosophy is useful, particularly in a pedagogical manner to teach critical thinking, questioning, how to use formal and informal logic, etc. As you said, to stimulate thought. But I think the actual questions and answers are meaningless, in a way similar to how the questions in math and physics coursework tends to be meaningless. (Who in the hell cares what the area under some arbitrary curve is? It's irrelevant to anything.) But it teaches you how to do integration. (you can take that skill and use it for something later) Philosophy is useful and at the same time meaningless in that manner IMO.
 
panic in paradise said:
I don't draw a distinction between "scientists" and "philosophers" as seperate entities, they are methods of our thinking or a process we utilize.
Click to expand...

The "polar opposites" thing threw me off. :D

Plus, like I said, it's not uncommon for scientists to dabble in philosophy or for philosophers to be men/women of science. I'm a science student and have used up a lot of my electives in philosophic fields. Ethics plays a major role in my major field of study and there will be even more (required) ethics courses ahead.
 
Philosophy without science is empty. Science without philosophy is blind.
 
Science was originally called natural philosophy. Despite the vast array of precise calculations and technologies used, in the end they still end up making assertions about the nature of reality, many of them which IMO are correct. But nonetheless, these assertions make them philosophers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top