↪Banno Science consists in empirical observations, hypotheses and theories. Empirical observations are either true or false, hypotheses and theories are testable.
Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science. — Janus
In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement. — T Clark
Aren't the presuppositions of science (which go into making such a statement) comprised of metaphysical positions - e.g., that reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described? And wouldn't physicalism be the metaphysical foundation of science? — Tom Storm
But that leads us to what Banno and I were addressing earlier: where something veers into science versus philosophy versus literal and figurative belly-aching is more content-specific than anything else, and even there more overlap exists than one might initially assume. — Artemis
I had a bunch written up, but then I realized, we're more or less quibbling over semantics. You said before that a claim about a non-existent thing is meaningless, I say it's false. Tomayto, tomahto, because false simply means not true, and meaningless would mean not true as well. Same dif. — Artemis
That's a tough one. That would be the case if the self "T Clark" is a metaphysical entity. — Manuel
It seems to me that selves are epistemological entities related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world. — Manuel
Aren't the presuppositions of science (which go into making such a statement) comprised of metaphysical positions - e.g., that reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described? And wouldn't physicalism be the metaphysical foundation of science? — Tom Storm
Once science and philosophy were not separated. Knowledge and talking about it were one and the same. In our time, I think philosophy should be more than just talking about science. — Verdi
I don't think it's that simple. "Not true" is not the same as "false." In this case, they live in different universes. I think this is an important issue, but I'm not sure I've been addressing it right in the past. I need to think about it some more. — T Clark
I don't agree with this. I see a relatively definitive delineation between metaphysical and scientific issues, statements, and questions. I call it "scientific" because that's the term we've been using, but it's more than that. It includes all of our regular daily interactions with the world — T Clark
I'd argue then when a scientific experiment reaches the theorum phase it is philosophy, for this and that together create 'it'(pronoun). — Varde
The world is related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world independent of us. — T Clark
Well, to be honest, I didn't read the OP. Only the title. It asked about the difference between science and philosophy. I gave a direct answer: science is knowledge, philosophy is talking about it. — Verdi
There's a time and a place to get more into the details of the umbrella terms that are "true" and "false" in the context of logic.... but I don't think it's worth wading into at this particular juncture. Another avenue for a good thread perhaps? — Artemis
Ok. So what do you think that definitive delineation is? — Artemis
You've brought up "presuppositions," which is Collingwood's term for the content of metaphysics. Actually, he says "absolute presuppositions." I've shied away from using his terms because I was afraid it would send us off in a direction different from where I wanted to head. I'm glad you did though and I have no problem with using them more if it will help.
I think the way you've described it is consistent with my understanding of how metaphysics works. I think you're example - "Reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described" - is a good example of an absolute presupposition. As for science, I've thought that it's metaphysical foundation is related to physicalism, realism, and materialism at least. I'm not sure the implications of applying any of those three, or something else, to science. — T Clark
The philosophy of science is simple. Science tries to capture the natural world. By means of gaining knowledge about it. By examining the stuff that constitutes it. — Verdi
Once science and philosophy were not separated. Knowledge and talking about it were one and the same. In our time, I think philosophy should be more than just talking about science. — Verdi
And on and on. The philosophy of science includes the scientific methodology, which is just a quasi-scientific attempt to frame the whole scientific enterprise in the quasi-scientific language of The Methodology. As if the human enterprise, erratically, non-rationally, non-programmed, or even maybe randomly, evolves. Scientists try crazingly to stick to this method, but that's merely empty verbiage. — Verdi
I'd argue then when a scientific experiment reaches the theorum phase it is philosophy, for this and that together create 'it'(pronoun). — Varde
I'm not sure I understand. If you were to say the world is related to how we think about it, then that's fine. If we are thinking about ourselves the world is of secondary importance at best. — Manuel
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.