If philosophy of science governs scientific practice, then does it follow that philosophy, being the source of the rules, equates itself with metaphysics? — ucarr

Philosophy of science does not govern scientific practice.

Science of Philosophy, or philosophy of science? — ucarr

You can philosophize about science, as you can about anything, real or imagined. But a science of philosophy would have find something to measure, some process to follow from one state to another. That's not impossible, maybe, but it sure isn't easy!

Can scientific truth and philosophical truth contradict each other and yet retain their validity, respectively? — ucarr

I don't see how. But that's okay, because philosophers catch up with scientific discovery sooner or later, and change their conjectures accordingly.

Does science deviate from the philosophical project when it rolls up its sleeves and gets down and dirty with observation of nature, experimentation, and double-blind testing? — ucarr

Science was never in the service of a "philosophical project"; observation of nature and experimentation is what science does.

If science discovers a posteriori the facts of nature, then does it follow that science, being the source of empirical truth, equates itself with materialism? — ucarr

Science doesn't equate itself with an ism; it just tries to discover how things work.

Is every category of science a type of materialism? — ucarr

Again, without any ism, real, tangible things and real, observable relationships is what science deals with. Immaterial things are too hard to study.

Does philosophy hold aloof from science within an academic fortress of abstract math and logic? — ucarr

I never have the slightest idea what philosophy's up to.

If philosophy of science governs scientific practice, then does it follow that philosophy, being the source of the rules, equates itself with metaphysics? — ucarr

Philosophy doesn't govern science or anything else. It wonders, postulates, theorizes, formulates and advances theories that cannot be tested. Certainly, metaphysics falls within that realm. Philosophers may propose rules, but they don't make rules.

Is every category of philosophy a type of metaphysics? — ucarr

Is every category of science a type of physics?

The study of natural and physical phenomena was once the domain of philosophy, but so was the study of politics and ethics. Over time the one diverged from the other according to modern usage of either terms, especially as the sciences became more specialized. Nonetheless, PhD still stands for Doctor of Philosophy.

The difference between philosophy and science is a philosophical difference, and, so, not necessarily amenable to scientific description. The inability to make that distinction is one of the main causes of scientism. Suffice to say, science is principally concerned with what is objectively measurable and empirically verifiable, and with accomodating whatever discoveries it makes within the bounds of an hypotheses that respects those principles. Philosophy is more concerned with qualitative questions and with questions of meaning.

If philosophy of science governs scientific practice... — ucarr

'Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds' ~ Richard Feynmann.

Is every category of science a type of physics? — Vera Mont

This is how I first thought to word my question.

If there's only a narrow separation between materialism and physics, does this suggest a reason why philosophy seeks its playing field upon the platform of subjectivity?

Philosophy of science does not govern scientific practice. — wonderer1

If philosophy of science has no practical application, what value do philosophers find within it?

The difference between philosophy and science is a philosophical difference — Wayfarer

Some scientists are very firm on a big difference between the two fields: Richard Feynmann. Must they wax philosophical when they describe the difference?

The inability to make that distinction is one of the main causes of scientism. — Wayfarer

Have philosophers established talking points explaining why science should not be privileged above philosophy?

Philosophy is more concerned with qualitative questions and with question of meaning. — Wayfarer

Do you deem these reasons for classifying philosophy within the humanities?

Over time the one diverged from the other according to modern usage of either terms, especially as the sciences became more specialized. Nonetheless, PhD still stands for Doctor of Philosophy. — NOS4A2

Can the philosopher nowadays be taken seriously as a science generalist? This label is meant to parallel the general practitioner of medicine, a doctor who does not specialize.

Do you deem these reasons for classifying philosophy within the humanities? — ucarr

I understand that German has a term 'geistewissenschaften' meaning 'sciences of the spirit', in which they include philosophy. There is no English equivalent for that term that I can think of.

Philosophy of science does not govern scientific practice. — wonderer1

I'd push against this a bit.

It's not like scientists cite philosophers of science, of course, tho Scientific practice could have its own philosophy -- one which, I suspect, isn't so general as "philosophy of science" might suggest.

But perhaps there are underlying philosophical presuppositions to any given science?

In which case there'd be a philosophy of science ... tho not governing, at least influencing scientific practice.

If there's only a narrow separation between materialism and physics, — ucarr

There is a huge gulf between physics and materialism. Physics describes how matter behaves; materialism is the desire to acquire wealth and comfort. How did isms get mixed up with science in the first place?

Some scientists are very firm on a big difference between the two fields: Richard Feynmann. Must they wax philosophical when they describe the difference? — ucarr

Neither college-anointed nor self-styled philosophers have a monopoly on articulating what their field of study is about.

Science of Philosophy, or philosophy of science? — ucarr

Philosophy of science.

Can scientific truth and philosophical truth contradict each other and yet retain their validity, respectively?

Philosophy is not theoretical but rather is interpretive (i.e. makes explicit – problemarizes – presuppositions and/or implicitations) of non-theoretical as well as theoretical statements.

Does science deviate from the philosophical project when it rolls up its sleeves and gets down and dirty with observation of nature, experimentation, and double-blind testing?

Science extends, not "deviates" from, philosophy into matters of fact (e.g. applied maths and logics).

If science discovers a posteriori the facts of nature, then does it follow that science, being the source of empirical truth, equates itself with materialism?

No

Is every[any] category of science a type of materialism?

No.

Does philosophy hold aloof from science within an academic fortress of abstract math and logic?

I don't understand this question.

If philosophy of science governs scientific practice, then does it follow that philosophy, being the source of the rules, equates itself with metaphysics?

"Philosophy of science" does not "govern science", it only clarifies and interprets concepts, methods, models, experiments, etc (and maybe even the import to, or impact on, non-scientific, or cultural, practices).

Is every category of philosophy a type of metaphysics?

IMHO, a (kataphatic) metaphysics proposes a categorical hierarchy, or organization, of topics/aporias in philosophy – (e.g.)
[ontology¹ [axiology² [epistemology]]]
which can be read knowing derived from valuing derived from being
– that is, 'conceptually making sense in the most general way of reality in the most general sense'.


(including theology & cosmology)¹
(i.e. aesthetics, ethics, logic)²

Science is science of x.

Except philosophy, which is the science of science or the science of scientiIzing. So philosophy is inherently self-reflective taking as its subject, the subject.

If philosophy of science has no practical application, what value do philosophers find within it? — ucarr

I didn't say philosophy of science has no practical application. I said PoS doesn't govern science.

I can't speak much to what value philosophers find in PoS. It appears to me that a substantial fraction of philosophers (or at least those who fancy themselves philosophers) find PoS to be justification for being pretty ignorant of science.

It appears to me that a substantial fraction of philosophers (or at least those who fancy themselves philosophers) find PoS to be justification for being pretty ignorant of science. — wonderer1

:sad:

I'm not sure how to parse philosophers from those who fancy themselves philosophers, but I'd say that Philosophy of Science is more like the Olympic sport of philosophy.

And those who wanted to remain ignorant had no need of phil-o-sci.

In which case there'd be a philosophy of science ... tho not governing, at least influencing scientific practice. — Moliere

Sure. I was specifically pointing out that it would be a misunderstanding to think that philosophy governs science.

Popper and Kuhn elucidated things that have been valuable to scientific thought, but I'd say that if it makes any sense to talk of something governing science 'Mother Nature' is the one laying down the laws.

Sure. I was specifically pointing out that it would be a misunderstanding to think that philosophy governs science. — wonderer1

Yeh, OK. I don't think there's a relationship of governance.

Popper and Kuhn elucidated things that have been valuable to scientific thought, but I'd say that if it makes any sense to talk of something governing science 'Mother Nature' is the one laying down the laws. — wonderer1

I wouldn't go that far, though.

I'd say there are no laws.

But that's at an abstract level.

In practice we have good enough measurements, theories, and predictions that make sense to enough of us to get along.

"laws", however, is a human concept we use to make sense of the regularity we happen to be able to collectively perceive. It's something of an interpretation rather than something that can be laid down, just as there is no mother nature that can lay it down.


At least to my mind -- tho this is getting to a level where I feel I'm just expressing what makes sense to me rather than arguing.

There is a huge gulf between physics and materialism. Physics describes how matter behaves; materialism is the desire to acquire wealth and comfort — Vera Mont

"Materialism" means two different things. A quick google gives me this:

1.
a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.
"they hated the sinful materialism of the wicked city"
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.
the theory or belief that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency.

You're talking about definition 1, while contextually in this conversation, it's safe to assume everyone else means something more along the lines of definition 2 - which is entirely unrelated to definition 1.

Someone could be a definition 1 materialist and not a definition 2 materialist - and vice versa.

Someone could be a definition 1 materialist and not a definition 2 materialist - and vice versa. — flannel jesus

You're right, of course. I was using the the more common definition tongue in cheek.

Science doesn't require one to "believe in" anything. A physicist can be a hedonist, an ascetic hermit, a fervent Muslim, a nihilist, a Marxist, a Quebec separatist or whatever in his personal philosophy. In his work, however, he studies the nature of physical matter and phenomena. If any philosophy, or ism, is allowed to influence the work of a physicists, he comes up with absurd, unprovable hypotheses, the way ancient philosophers did, and their experiments won't work.

yeah, physicists can believe in just about anything - the only thing they're almost guaranteed to believe in is the efficacy of learning about the world through observation and experiment.

the only thing they're almost guaranteed to believe in is the efficacy of learning about the world through observation and experiment. — flannel jesus

Not guaranteed but required. It's the fundamental requirement for their discipline. Physics is singularly unforgiving, it's almost impossible to drag fanciful beliefs into the work. But a complex science, like medicine and climatology, can be contaminated by philosophical vagaries - especially lucrative ones.

What is the difference between philosophy and science:

The short list, and assuming the human condition alone….
…..no science is ever done purely a priori, and no philosophy is ever done purely a posteriori;
…..philosophical truths are proven logically and are necessarily so, scientific truths are proven empirically and are contingently so;
…..no science is done that isn’t first a philosophical construct, from which follows….
…..a scientist is always a philosopher, but a philosopher is not always, nor needs be, a scientist;
…..all together, philosophy differs from science merely in the determination and application of rules.

In the modern era the philosophy of science is largely done by scientists who work on the cutting edge of science. Their speculations are the creative philosophical gems that propel discoveries.

There are some philosophers who are versed in contemporary knowledge who might qualify as well.

JMHO

Interesting elaboration of certain practices likely going on quietly within science circles. Thanks for turning on this light.

In the modern era the philosophy of science is largely done by scientists who work on the cutting edge of science. Their speculations are the creative philosophical gems that propel discoveries.

There are some philosophers who are versed in contemporary knowledge who might qualify as well. — jgill

Yes. This activity needs to be occurring steadily, and it is. Complicated processes need regular oversight with regard to methodology. Maybe it's a stretch, but I think metaphysics as the grammar or rules of procedure offers suggestions as to how methodology might evolve.

Maybe it's a stretch, but I think metaphysics as the grammar or rules of procedure offers suggestions as to how methodology might evolve. — ucarr

I don't see how philosophers looking over scientists' shoulders does any good. The various sciences have their own procedures, with the exception of quantum theory where there are questions.

…..no science is ever done purely a priori, and no philosophy is ever done purely a posteriori; — Mww

Do you think it's also true when we switch the position of the two disciplines in the above statement?

…..philosophical truths are proven logically and are necessarily so, scientific truths are proven empirically and are contingently so; — Mww

This statement is interesting in a suggestive way: empirical truth, logically speaking, examples provisional knowledge in reference to abstract logical statements. Does this imply abstract logical statements are idealizations?

…..no science is done that isn’t first a philosophical construct, from which follows…. — Mww

Here you show that scientific theorizing dovetails with philosophy: thinking in terms of correlation, logic and causation is always epistemological.

...a philosopher is not always, nor needs be, a scientist; — Mww

I differ with you here. If a philosopher is not first a scientist, then they need to always maintain a direct line to someone who is. I think the relationship between scientific truth and philosophical truth is bi-conditional. They're always linked by a double-implication. I think you say as much with:

…..no science is done that isn’t first a philosophical construct — Mww

and with:

…..a scientist is always a philosopher... — Mww

philosophy differs from science merely in the determination and application of rules. — Mww

I think this difference, when the two disciplines dialog constructively, for my reasons above, shrinks to a near vanishing point. I suppose I'm saying science and philosophy are two sub-divisions, or specializations operating under one over-arching category.

Heh you flatter me too much. I'm not sure what's going on in scientific circles, in such a general sense -- and I have no pretentions that I'm somehow influential or representative. It's just my day job that I like to do, and I like to think about that here since I've always liked thinking about what I'm doing or what's going on -- life, the universe, and everything, and all that rot.

Here is how I view it in extremely simple terms Ucarr. Philosophy is a hypothesis. Science is its application.

Philosophy is concerned with constructing ideas into language that makes sense logically. You can use this logic and attempt to apply it. So for example, lets say I create a definition of good which is built up from the ground logically. It seems good right? The next step is to apply it. That's science.

In another case, science can test something and find an outcome that no one thought possible. No one knows what this outcome means. Philosophy tries to capture that outcome into a language that is consistently logical and can then be tested against again.

I do not think the complete scientific method can exist without philosophy. I do not think a completely philosophical exploration can be complete without science. But, the fields can be separated enough at times where there is viable work to be done on the hypothesis alone vs work on the application alone. Thus the division of study.

I don't see how philosophers looking over scientists' shoulders does any good. The various sciences have their own procedures... — jgill

We're on the same page here. I smile upon scientists who do in-house philosophizing about the meaning of one type of procedure versus another type. However, as you say:

There are some philosophers who are versed in contemporary knowledge who might qualify as well. — jgill

So, it should be okay too if philosopher-specialists provide some of the thinking about proper scientific goals in general and likewise proper general scientific procedure.