The difference between philosophy and science

T Clark

This discussion is a spinoff from “You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher.” In that discussion, several people compared not reading philosophy to not reading science. They noted, for example, that you wouldn’t hire a physicist or engineer who wasn’t properly educated, wasn’t familiar with the body of knowledge in their discipline. In response, I stated that philosophy is different from science. I gave reasons which, although I think they were correct, were probably vague and unclear. I was never really satisfied with my response.

Recently, I had a back and forth with @Artemis that set me thinking again - trying to get an answer that satisfied me more. This is what I came up with:

When science broke off from philosophy, it lost all the parts of it where you could be wrong. Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact. This ties in with my oft repeated refrain - metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful. — T Clark

To expand a little, here is a list of the subdisciplines of philosophy from the forum table of contents.

Metaphysics & Epistemology
Philosophy of Mind
Ethics
Political Philosophy
Philosophy of Art
Philosophy of Religion
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Language

I’ve pulled out “Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics” because I’m not sure how to handle it. It seems to me it may belong outside philosophy along with science. I’m not sure.

My claim is that all of those remaining in the list do not deal with questions that have true or false answers. I’ve been trying to make the case that this is true for metaphysics, including epistemology, for at least four years, which is when I started a thread called “An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics.” In that thread, I claimed that metaphysical questions do not have true or false answers. Metaphysical propositions have no truth value, they are only more or less useful in particular situations. I’ve restated this many times since then, although I don’t think I’ve convinced many people.

For the rest of the subdisciplines on the list, I think my case is clearer. Morals, ethics, art, and politics clearly deal with values rather than facts. Religion is a bit ambiguous, since some think the existence of God is a matter of fact. Philosophies of science and language may seem like they are dealing with matters of fact, but I think that’s just because people have a hard time separating the science from the philosophy.

So, that’s my claim. As for this thread, although I’d like to discuss my position, the discussion is open to anyone else’s ideas about the differences between science and philosophy, even if they are unrelated to my ideas.

Joshs

↪T Clark

A person observes a seemingly chaotic and unpredictable stream of phenomena. Over time, that chaos resolves itself into regularities and patterns after the observer tries on for size various templates and schemes to make sense of what they are seeing( the ‘facts’ as you call them).
They then produce from this template a formal hypothesis (value system) and test it out on subsequent events( facts) to see how well it predicts the future based on the past. These subsequent events can either validate or invalidate the hypothesis( true and false as you call it).
Even if the hypothesis is validated by experience, one can try out alternative hypotheses. One of these may produce a different way of organizing ones experience that may be preferable to the older way, even if the older way has not technically been invalidated.

Is what I’ve just described science or philosophy? It is both. Why choose Kant over Descartes or Hegel over Kant or Nietzsche over Hegel? Because a philosophy offers a template( what you’re calling ‘ values’) for organizing experience ( what you call ‘facts’) that does a better or worse job of anticipating events than other philosophies.

T Clark

↪Joshs

I like the way you've laid this out. Let me see if I can respond clearly. Here are the steps you lay out:

Observe phenomena
Identify regularities
Generate hypotheses
Test hypotheses

The process you've described is the scientific method, which is philosophy, i.e. epistemology, a valid process for obtaining knowledge. You haven't provided any information on the content that is being processed, i.e. actual observations, regularities, hypotheses, and testing. That content is the science.

In line with my way of seeing things, the process you've described, what we call the scientific method, is not correct or incorrect, it is more or less useful. We have found it to be very useful in a lot of cases. I'm a big fan of the scientific method.

Tom Storm

Susan Haack (a prominent philosopher of science) suggests strongly that there is no scientific method as such. I'm paraphrasing, but for her there are just approaches used to test if something is likely and can be used by law, cooking and science.

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists. Susan Haack

is not correct or incorrect, it is more or less useful. — T Clark

I've noticed that you often come back to this point. I wonder if this is slightly evasive. Surely a scientific approach to a problem is more correct if the matter is a hospital research team trying to treat or cure cancer? Prayer would be an example of an incorrect approach.

We seem to go out of our way to avoid using terms like right or wrong, correct and incorrect, perhaps in an attempt to sidestep debate. I would argue that some approaches are correct if you want a useful outcome. In determining which approach to use, one can set a criterion of value relative to the task at hand. Happy to hear where I am wrong.

Manuel

Susan Haack (a prominent philosopher of science) suggests strongly that there is no scientific method as such. — Tom Storm

She calls science "a loose federations of interrelated kinds of inquiry."

T Clark

Susan Haack (a prominent philosopher of science) suggests strongly that there is no scientific method as such. I'm paraphrasing, but for her there are just approaches used to test if something is likely and can be used by law, cooking and science.

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists. Susan Haack — Tom Storm

Haack says there are a set of "inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers." You know... methods. Methods of science. The scientific method. I'm not trying to be cute. She's being lazy with her argument.

I've noticed that you often come back to this point. I wonder if this is slightly evasive. Surely a scientific approach to a problem is more correct if the matter is a hospital research team trying to treat or cure cancer? — Tom Storm

Yes, I think we can all agree, at least all of us here, that using a scientific approach in researching cancer will be more effective, useful, than prayer.

We seem to go out of our way to avoid using terms like right or wrong, correct and incorrect, perhaps in an attempt to sidestep debate. — Tom Storm

I strongly disagree that acknowledging that choosing a particular procedure is useful as opposed to correct is an attempt to avoid debate. It certainly isn't in my case. The selection is made on the basis of human value, usefulness, effectiveness. It's an important distinction.

Thought experiment.. Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is?

Tom Storm

Thought experiment.. Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is? — T Clark

Probably not, but I'm not a philosopher. Why this question?

It certainly isn't in my case. The selection is made on the basis of human value, usefulness, effectiveness. It's an important distinction. — T Clark

This is not intended as a criticism or animadversion, but what's the point of elevating utility if there isn't a demonstrable correct way to arrive there relative to the issue at hand?

The scientific method. I'm not trying to be cute. She's being lazy with her argument. — T Clark

Methods of cooking and legal enquiry too. I defer to her expertise. Have you read much of Haack's work? I am only making a superficial reference of her distinguished thinking on this subject (which I don't pretend to be familiar with except in overview).

T Clark

Why this question? — Tom Storm

I think it's a good example of the kind of distinction I'm claiming is important. I didn't propose it as a way to argue against your point. I ran the thought experiment on myself at the same time I proposed it to you. I think it's an interesting question. I'm curious how other people will respond.

This is not intended as a criticism or animadversion, but what's the point of elevating utility if there isn't a demonstrable correct way to arrive there relative to the issue at hand? — Tom Storm

I'm not sure I understand your question. You and I agree that science is a better, more effective, way of searching for a cure for cancer than prayer. Does "better" mean "correct?" I'll reformulate that response in a way that is more difficult for my argument to handle - Is the statement "Science is a better way of finding a cure for cancer than prayer," true? That's really interesting. I'll think about it some more.

Shawn

Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. — T Clark

That's actually a field of philosophy altogether, called axiology.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

Hey, it's no biggie. Thanks for considering.

In relation to your thought experiment.

Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is? — T Clark

"The correct answer to what is the capital of France is Paris"
The correct way to study cancer is using science."

'Correct' plays a different role in both of these ideas.

And they are provisional - If you are studying people's 'lived experience' of cancer, the answer might be different.

T Clark

"The correct answer to what is the capital of France is Paris"
The correct way to study cancer is using science."

'Correct' plays a different role in both of these ideas.

And they are provisional - If you are studying people's 'lived experience' of cancer, the answer might be different. — Tom Storm

If you are saying that, for some people, prayer might provide a better, or at least more humane, way to deal with their cancer than science, I agree. I was going to add an argument something like that, but I didn't want to deal with the issue with vague arm-waving. I should be able to address it head on.

Artemis

↪T Clark

What a good thread! Definitely helps to try and clarify these things.

I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic and Phil of Math (or Phil of any Science) from your list of philosophical subdisciplines. I'll stick to talking about Logic though, because I know it better than the others.

Logic is the foundation for the other subdisciplines. You can't do the others without knowing Logic. Even if you dislike Logic and think some of it is wrong or whatever, you have to use the rules of Logic to get anywhere analytically.

The rest of philosophy deals with facts and truth in varying degrees. I think it would be more helpful to think of it less as "either/or" and more as "both/and." Philosophy deals with, for example, values AND truth claims. Metaphysics deals generally more with claims that either are or aren't true, and Ethics less so.

There's also the part that philosophy draws on data from the world to make claims. Ethics could, to some degree, make subject-less claims I suppose. Ethics could try to talk about how we should treat pink, invisible unicorns. But for the most part it's making value claims about the real world based on data that is either true or false. Although you can't derive and ought from an is, you still use is's to continue argumentation.

1. You ought not kick sentient beings. (ought)
2. Pink, invisible unicorns are sentient beings. (is)
C. You ought not kick pink, invisible unicorns. (ought)

Note that--with the foundation of Logic! --this is a valid argument, but not a sound one. Replace pink, invisible unicorn with dog, and you've got a sound argument. Philosophy has built in mechanisms to discuss truth and falsity.

Note also, that the enlightenment drive to distinguish so clearly and absolutely between the disciplines is losing steam. There is a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to .... well, just about everything.

Janus

Pink, invisible unicorns — Artemis

How can something be both pink and invisible?

Artemis

↪Janus

Unicorns don't exist either.

Janus

↪Artemis

Seems irrelevant. We don't know that they don't exist somewhere; they may or may not. There's a difference between not existing and not possibly existing. in any case.

Artemis

↪Janus

I'm not sure what you're referring to as irrelevant, but commonly people add the adjectives "pink, invisible" to unicorn to emphasize it's non-existence, because (as you rightly note) it's logically impossible.

Janus

↪Artemis

I said that the actual existence of unicorns is irrelevant because you could just as well have used 'pink invisible dog'. Anyway, it's a trivial point, so please carry on regardless,

Artemis

↪Janus

:up:

Banno

Unicorns don't exist either. — Artemis

:gasp:

Banno

My claim is that all of those remaining in the list do not deal with questions that have true or false answers. — T Clark

Science gives true or false answers? I thought the pop wisdom was that scientific statements were never true, only probable. Or falsifiable.

And if that's the case, then distinguishing science from philosophy on the basis of truth and falsehood won't work.

T Clark

I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic and Phil of Math (or Phil of any Science) from your list of philosophical subdisciplines. I'll stick to talking about Logic though, because I know it better than the others. — Artemis

To be clear, I excluded "Logic and Philosophy of Math" because 1) They seem different from the rest and 2) I really don't know what to say about them. As for Philosophy of Science, I didn't exclude it. Although I foresee some confusion fitting it into my scheme, I feel like I know enough to deal with it.

Logic is the foundation for the other subdisciplines. You can't do the others without knowing Logic. Even if you dislike Logic and think some of it is wrong or whatever, you have to use the rules of Logic to get anywhere analytically. — Artemis

There's a discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to dig in because 1) as I noted, I'm not good with logic and 2) I don't think the discussion we could have is specifically relevant to the issue I am trying to deal with.

The rest of philosophy deals with facts and truth in varying degrees. I think it would be more helpful to think of it less as "either/or" and more as "both/and." Philosophy deals with, for example, values AND truth claims. Metaphysics deals generally more with claims that either are or aren't true, and Ethics less so. — Artemis

I didn't say philosophy doesn't deal with facts and truth. I said philosophy does not deal with questions that have true or false answers. For example, from Wikipedia entry for Coherence Theory of Truth - "Truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole." This statement is about "truth," but, I claim at least, it is neither true nor false.

There's also the part that philosophy draws on data from the world to make claims. Ethics could, to some degree, make subject-less claims I suppose. ... But for the most part it's making value claims about the real world based on data that is either true or false. — Artemis

Ok, let's try this - "It's wrong to intentionally harm people." Is that statement true? If so, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2," is? I'm working this out for myself at the same time I'm sending it back to you.

T Clark

Science gives true or false answers? I thought the pop wisdom was that scientific statements were never true, only probable. Or falsifiable. — Banno

This is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement.

god must be atheist

To me, the difference between philosophy and science is this:
1. They are both based on prior knowledge.
2. They both add to prior knowledge new knowledge or new intuitive interpretation that makes sense.
3.1. Then science investigates the new intuitive interpretation and justifies or falsifies it with experiments or observations.
3.2. At the same point, philosophy does not try to justify its intuitive findings.

As you can see, philosophy satisfies itself with being logical and having logical / sensible / reasonable explanations.

Science does not stop at the explanation level; explanations can be justified or falsified. That's precisely what science does. It tries to falsify philosophical or scientific intuitive findings; if it succeeds, it debunks the finding. If in repeated tries (or at least in one trial) the facts NOT HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FORMATION OF THE THEORY AS FACTS, but were pointed at as necessary outcomes, do get observed, then the theory enters science and leaves the sphere of philosophy.

Not to say that the theory that has been accepted now as scientific can't become the basis of new ideas in philosophy.

god must be atheist

I think you people have placed too much emphasis on truth and falsehoods of philosophy and science.

Truth is temporary in its nature, and therefore truths are referred to by scientists as "current indicators makes us believe that..." Falsehoods, however, stick. "Scrutiny has proved it false."

Sometimes a faslehood becomes truth. This can be looked at that people believe that their opinion held is true; whether the opinion judges something to be false or true, does't matter, the opinion is true. Therefore when a falsehood flips to be true, the actual process is that the OPINION get shown to be wrong, the opinion that says that it's true that something else is false.

god must be atheist

An example of a theory in philosophy that contains the elements of philosophy as describe by me, is the theory on morality I have proposed and nobody has tried to debunk it. At least not successfully to this day. The theory rests on scientific findings, and it introduces new intuitive ways of looking at the topic, but it does not try to make it stand by failing to falsify it. The theory has a short and a long description, and I urge you people to please read it in earnest, and make comments on it. At the same time you'll see that the theory I created serves as a working example to my theory on what differentiates science from philosophy.

The theories can be found here (short form)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

And here (long form)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

TheMadFool

↪T Clark

You're espousing scientific antirealism - that science doesn't/shouldn't resort to making metaphysical claims which would be the case if scientists say that scientific theories are true i.e. for example a theory about quarks means that quarks actually exist.

Scientific antirealists hold the view that science is about building models that are empirically adequate i.e. they provide explanations for observational data and that's where science should stop, eschewing metaphysical baggage that comes with truth.

I don't quite get what you mean by science being "useful"

That's all I have on the philosophy of science.

Caldwell

Morals, ethics, art, and politics clearly deal with values rather than facts. — T Clark

The values are vigorously argued, however. A valid argument is what's common among these disciplines. They make use of facts to support their arguments.

Wayfarer

Some relevant excerpts:

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements. — The Real War on Science, Edward Dougherty

(The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012) illustrates is the ever present gap between theory and verification. The standard model was enormously successful in its account of the basic particles and the forces through which they interact. It was mathematically satisfying and elegantly based on notions of physical symmetry. Yet no one would ever have suggested that it must be correct regardless of any process of empirical verification. Such a process of verification lies at the heart of the scientific method. Theories are not self-verifying but always remain hypothetical constructs, subject to the next round of possible verification or falsification from the data.

This leads to a significant tension in the whole scientific project. Its drive is to seek intelligibility or patterns in the empirical data, to express these patterns in theoretical constructs, yet in the end it must deal with a brute fact of existence, which either verifies or falsifies these proposed patterns.

That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check." — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss

T Clark

You're espousing scientific antirealism - that science doesn't/shouldn't resort to making metaphysical claims which would be the case if scientists say that scientific theories are true i.e. for example a theory about quarks means that quarks actually exist. — TheMadFool

I don't think you read my OP very carefully.

T Clark

The values are vigorously argued, — Caldwell

Yes, true.

A valid argument is what's common among these disciplines. — Caldwell

Validity and truth are not the same thing. I didn't say, and I don't believe, that metaphysical questions aren't important and don't have value. In a sense, they are more important than facts, because we have a role in choosing the answer, even if we aren't aware we do.

They make use of facts to support their arguments. — Caldwell

I didn't say they didn't, and that isn't relevant to my claims. Or, maybe it is. Explain to me how.

T Clark

↪Caldwell

I made some mistakes in my recent response that might be confusing. They will probably show up in the link notifying you of a mention. Go directly to the post instead of following the link.

The difference between philosophy and science

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions