Philosophy vs Science

A Christian Philosophy

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; any type of truths that can be drawn from the natural world. And these truths can be split into many areas, called sciences.
A science (original meaning) is the search for truth in a specific area of study.

Here is a list of sciences with a brief description:

Physics - the science of things in space and time
Biology - the science of living organisms
Medicine - the science of treatment of disease
Mathematics - the science of logic of numbers
Logic - the science of necessary outcomes
Metaphysics - the science of reality
Epistemology - the science of validity of knowledge
Ethics - the science of right conduct

In the pre-modern period, all these would have fallen under the same umbrella of Philosophy. Then at the start of the modern period (say around the 1600’s) it was decided to split the sciences into 2 categories:

The empirical sciences, which we commonly just call Science (modern meaning)
The rational sciences, which we commonly just call Philosophy (modern meaning)

The Empirical Sciences start with observations of the natural world, and end with conclusions that are empirically verifiable, that is to say, observable.
For example: Say we enquire on whether the earth is flat or round. Our perception of its shape from the ground can be explained by either hypothesis. Sure, we may be able to deduce the shape using geometry alone, but we would need to defend prior assumptions such as the distance of the sun, and so on. Ultimately though, we can verify our hypothesis empirically, by taking a rocket into space and looking out the window. Therefore this topic falls under the empirical sciences.

The Rational Sciences also start with observations of the natural world, (every claim must be built from something), but they end with conclusions that are not empirically verifiable. Now they are verifiable (as in defendable), but using reason alone.
For example: We observe that everything eventually dies, even the stars. This prompts us to ask if there is nothing in reality that is eternal. And as we cannot observe things forever, we are not able to verify this empirically. But logically, if nothing is eternal, then this very statement cannot be eternally true; which is a self-contradiction. So there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable. And this conclusion is verified (or defended) by reason alone.

And so Physics, Biology, and Medicine, fit under the category of empirical sciences, because their topics are empirically verifiable. Where as Mathematics, Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics fit under the category of rational sciences. Here is why:

Mathematics and Logic - because these are exact sciences whose conclusions are known with certainty without the need for empirical verification. For instance, we have never observed unicorns, but we guarantee that 2 unicorns and another 2 unicorns results in 4 unicorns.
Metaphysics - because even the metaphysical claim: “everything that is real is observable” is not itself observable.
Epistemology - because the science that comes up with methods of validation, cannot itself be validated by its own methods.
Ethics - because while we can observe how people do behave, we cannot observe how they should behave.

Let’s clear up one common misconception: The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences. For one thing, as they deal with separate areas of study, they are not in competition. But what’s more, the common method used in all empirical sciences, called the Scientific Method, is founded on the rational sciences, and so depends on them to be valid. Scientism, the belief that “any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences.

Both types of science are here to stay, and both are valuable in our search for truth.

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science?
Also, feedback on the video is welcome :blush:

ssu

Thanks for making a video.

Just a question: is metaphysics really "the science of reality"? I think it would be study of what is outside our objective experience, thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. Not something that we can experiment with. Hence the word meta in front of physics.

Many people think of science as something where you can apply the scientific method, basically something that is experimental.

Hence the difference what you mean by emprical and rational sciences ought to be discussed as many understand the scientific method to be empirical.

Scientific method = a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Anyway, hope this comment improves your thoughts.

180 Proof

Science seeks testable, good explanations for formal structures or natural phenomena.

Philosophy seeks to unlearn self-immiserating habits (e.g. illusions of knowing) through reflective inquiries (re: formal, natural & historical sciences) and reflective practices (re: arts, trades, lived experience).

Of course, YMMV. :up:

T Clark

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

You've laid your argument clearly and the way you look at things makes sense. I think, though, you make it seem easier than it is. I'm a big fan of RG Collingwood, especially his "Essay on Metaphysics." He says that metaphysical statements are not propositions but rather presuppositions. They are underlying assumptions which people are not generally aware of that underpin our understanding of reality and knowledge, including science. As such, they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. Collingwood doesn't say so, but to me, epistemology is the same.

What it comes down to for me is that what you call rational sciences are founded on human value. Preferences. Usefulness. On the other hand, what you call empirical sciences can pretend they aren't permeated by human value because they have metaphysics and epistemology to take the rap for them. If we ignore or deny the fact that metaphysics and epistemology provide the foundation for science, the argument might convince scientists they can be truly objective.

Mikie

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth — A Christian Philosophy

Already on the wrong track. Philosophy’s “original” meaning is hardly the search for truth — and certainly not the kind of truth we talk about these days. This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see as a false premise.

Bartricks

↪A Christian Philosophy

This sounds correct to me. It was Plato who defined philosophy as using reason to search for truth and he founded the discipline (by founding the first university in which to teach it).

I would not distinguish between the empirical sciences and the rational sciences, however. For insofar as empirical inquiry is taken to be telling us something about reality, it must be thought that we have normative reason - justifying reason - to believe that our sensations are 'of' a world.

So there is no way of avoiding having to make an appeal to reason. The view, held by so many these days, that empirical investigation is our ultimate source of insight into reality, is not a view that is empirically verifiable and so undermines itself. That is, it is demonstrably false. To avoid incoherence the wannabe empiricist must simply insist that it is a self-evident truth of reason that, aside from that one insight from reason, all other information about reality comes via our sensations. And that view, though not incoherent, seems ad hoc. But is, importantly a form of rationalism.

Those who reject rationalism are just announcing that they cannot defend their view (whatever it may be). They can merely state it, but if asked to provide reason to think it is true, they will refuse.

180 Proof

↪Xtrix

:fire:

javi2541997

This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see is a false premise. — Xtrix

Agreed. :up: :fire:

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; — A Christian Philosophy

Well, not really. Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness.

All human activities are done in order to attain something that is good. We don’t do something because we think it will be bad for us. In addition, most of these activities are not the main objective, but rather a means to a higher end. Consequently, the activity that is an end in itself, writes the prolific philosopher, is the highest good, and that good is happiness. We aim at happiness for its own sake, not because it will achieve something else. Happiness, therefore, is our greatest mission. - Aristotle, The Goal of Happiness: A summary of Nicomachean Ethics

Agent Smith

Well, not really. Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness — javi2541997

Eudaimonia?

javi2541997

Eudaimonia? — Agent Smith

:up: :smile:

Yohan

Already on the wrong track. Philosophy’s “original” meaning is hardly the search for truth — and certainly not the kind of truth we talk about these days. This seems to me to be imposing a scientific/Cartesian worldview on the Greeks. One that emphasizes epistemology. So the rest of the post is founded upon what I see is a false premise. — Xtrix

Something to what you say from an etymology and historical perspective, but lets not consider etymology and tradition to be the final authority on what a term means.

Philosophy means love for 'sophia', which we translate as 'wisdom'. But wisdom has a seperate etymology than sophia. No two words in different languages have precisely the exact same meaning and usage.
At any rate, I should think a chief characteristic of the love of wisdom is the search for truth. So I wouldn't say the OP is necessarily "wrong", in spirit, even if wrong somewhat according to the letter.
'Natural' is the can of worms I have some issue with.
Edit: However the OP was specifically talking about the original meaning of the word, so you're right.

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

Eudaimonia = Beautitudo (happiness) +/-/×/÷ ?

Agent Smith

Philosophy means love for 'sophia', which we translate as 'wisdom'. — Yohan

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

So, that means, yipee!, to be a philosopher all you havta do is love wisdom (Sophia); you don't actually have to possess Sophia (virgin love à la Laila & Majnun).

javi2541997

+/-/×/÷ — Agent Smith

I would say +.

Eudomonia + wisdom = beautitudo!

Metaphysician Undercover

↪Agent Smith

Socrates, the prime example, the lover of wisdom. but in possession of none. Remember though, the relationship between "love" and desire and want, especially for the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek concept of "love" is well drawn out in Plato's "The Symposium". They were not in possession of the Christianized concept of "love" at that time.

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

Interesting combo!

↪Metaphysician Undercover

I see!

Mikie

Something to what you say from an etymology and historical perspective, but lets not consider etymology and tradition to be the final authority on what a term means. — Yohan

True, but in this case I think it’s relevant only because “original” was used. I think there’s a lot more to be said about it. As many know, I like what Heidegger says about the Greeks — especially regarding aletheia (“truth”), so this particularly stands out to me.

T Clark

Philosophy (original meaning) is the search for truth; any type of truths that can be drawn from the natural world. And these truths can be split into many areas, called sciences. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps this isn't the correct original meaning of "philosophy," but I don't think that undermines the rest of your argument.

A Christian Philosophy

↪ssu

Hello.

is metaphysics really "the science of reality"? I think it would be study of what is outside our objective experience, thinking about the fundamental nature of reality. Not something that we can experiment with. Hence the word meta in front of physics. — ssu

Yes - that's what I meant in shorthand: the science of fundamentals of reality.

Many people think of science as something where you can apply the scientific method, basically something that is experimental. Hence the difference what you mean by emprical and rational sciences ought to be discussed as many understand the scientific method to be empirical. — ssu

This is indeed the modern meaning of "science", i.e. 17th century and onwards. But the word was used before in a broader sense. E.g. Aristotle used it as any topic that pertains to truth.

Philosophim

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves.

A Christian Philosophy

↪180 Proof

Hello. I pretty much agree with you definitions.

Science, being empirical, must be testable.
Philosophy: I also agree with the habit aspect. Wisdom (the "sophy" part of philosophy) is not just the right beliefs but also the right behaviour that follows.

A Christian Philosophy

↪T Clark

Hello.

metaphysical statements are not propositions but rather presuppositions. They are underlying assumptions which people are not generally aware of that underpin our understanding of reality and knowledge, including science. — T Clark

Yes - I think this is similar to what we call axioms or first principles. Metaphysics is sometimes called "first philosophy".

If we ignore or deny the fact that metaphysics and epistemology provide the foundation for science, the argument might convince scientists they can be truly objective. — T Clark

Indeed, first principles are the foundation for all our knowledge, including science; and by definition, they cannot be defended. However, by mere common sense, are they not obviously true? At the end of the day, planes fly.

T Clark

Indeed, first principles are the foundation for all our knowledge, including science; and by definition, they cannot be defended. However, by mere common sense, are they not obviously true? At the end of the day, planes fly. — A Christian Philosophy

Are you saying that metaphysical principles are "obviously true?" If so, I disagree. As I noted, for Collingwood and me, metaphysics is not true or false. Or are you saying that scientific results are obviously true? That gets us into the old "what is truth" discussion, at least one of which is already open on the front page of the forum.

A Christian Philosophy

↪Xtrix

Hello. What would you say is the goal of philosophy?

Philosophy means "love of wisdom", and wisdom means "conforming our beliefs to reality (i.e. true beliefs) and our behaviour to reality (i.e. right behaviour)".

Gnomon

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

As a former Christian, I must say that your post is quite logical, and well-presented. And I agree that "The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences". I also accept that " there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable". Moreover, I concur that "Scientism, the belief that any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences". Hence, it must be accepted on faith in human senses, and their artificial extensions. Yet, Logic (Reason) is a sort of sixth sense, that deals with subjective ideas, not objective things.

I can even agree that "Metaphysics - the science of reality" --- but with the proviso, that it's a "science" in the general sense of "a way of knowing". But, since the 17th century, Empiricism has arrogated the term "science" to its sense-experience experiments. Therefore, rational Metaphysics has been relegated to feckless Philosophy, with its debatable logical inferences. Ironically, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who used rational-thought-experiments to determine the unseen forces and mathematical structures of reality -- only later confirmed by empirical methods.

However, while most religions have rational philosophical/theological traditions, their popularity is not based on logic, but due to emotional appeals, prejudices & preferences. Which is why they tend to eventually break-down into passionately defended sects, with only a veneer of dispassionate logic. Even a calm rational philosophy like Buddhism, has it's zealous religious sects. Likewise, Scientism is a sect of Science, that is directly opposed to all hypothetical belief systems. Hopefully though, we can all get-along under the broad umbrella of Philosophy, with its dispassionate love of both empirical and theoretical truths. :cool:

Theoretical : considered, contemplative, speculative ; as contrasted to practical, pragmatic, empiricial

javi2541997

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves. — Philosophim

:up: :100:

A Christian Philosophy

↪Bartricks

Hello. I agree with you. To clarify, empirical science does not mean observation without reason. It means reason with observation; in contrast to rational science which means reason without observation.

L'éléphant

I've always viewed science as discovering what is known from definitions. Philosophy questions definitions themselves. — Philosophim

It's really simple. The archaic mantra "love of wisdom", when defining philosophy, should receive a more rigorous scrutiny.

Philosophy is positing what exists and/or what is real. If we get this right, then nothing else should be confusing.

A Christian Philosophy

↪javi2541997

Hello.

Aristotle on Nichomachean Ethics proposed that one of the aim of wisdom was happiness. — javi2541997

Yes, I agree with that. We all seek what we believe to be good; and in order to find what is truly good, we must seek what is true. Philosophy is the search for truth, and this search is for the end of the true good.

A Christian Philosophy

↪Philosophim

Hello. I agree that questioning definitions would be a rational and not empirical science, because we cannot test what we cannot yet define. However, I'd say philosophy is more than that. E.g. ethics seeks correct behaviour, and not merely definitions.

A Christian Philosophy

↪T Clark

The latter. The fact that scientific results are obviously true (e.g. we all take planes) shows that the scientific methods are correct, and thus so are their foundations. If a tower stands, it means its foundation is well built.

Admittedly, it is not certain because everything I ever observe could be a dream, but it is very reasonable. At the end of the day, we all behave as though what we observe is real.

Philosophy vs Science

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions