I don't see it as an us vs. them, to me science and philosophy are inseparable, and trying to separate them makes science a religion and philosophy something irrelevant to most people. I see the whole endeavor of making observations and thinking about them and interpreting them and comparing them and connecting them as both science and philosophy, they didn't use to be separate in the minds of people, but now they are for no good reason in my view, simply because of confusions and misconceptions. — leo
So whatever progress is a result of what I would call science-philosophy, even scientists who say they despise philosophy make use of it in their research, they just don't realize it, but that means they are often not aware of their beliefs underlying their research. Also I disagree that what we call 'progress' necessarily improve our lives, it seems to me we're on a course towards destroying life on Earth all while reveling in the idea that we're making progress. Maybe if we thought more about what we are doing, rather than just keep on doing whatever we're doing, we wouldn't be going that way. — leo
I don't have a disgust for scientists, I have a disgust for the idea that thinking about what we are doing is useless, that it's useless to think about the meaning of what we're doing, to think about how certain the results we get are, to think about the beliefs and assumptions underlying what we do, to think about other world views we would get by picking other beliefs or assumptions, to think about the consequences of what we do. The idea that the only thing that's useful is to keep doing whatever we're doing because supposedly we're making Progress and supposedly we're getting closer to Truth and supposedly Science will solve all our problems. We might very well go on to destroy the world while being stuck in that cult. — leo
In my experience in school, science and mathematics contexts often had no time for philosophy because a common approach was to simply not care about those sorts of issues. There was a purely pragmatic, instrumental approach most of the time--they were merely concerned with whatever worked, whatever accounted for data/observations, and whatever produced results in applied settings. Focusing on what was "really the case ontologically," how we could know certain things, etc. was seen as a waste of time that had no practical upshot. — Terrapin Station
So gravity and spacetime are reifications. — T Clark
What about electromagnetic radiation, subatomic particles, the universe, galaxies, forests, black holes. — T Clark
I'll go back to oceans again. Salt water is concrete, but I don't see how an ocean is. — T Clark
We know space time using the same general techniques as we use to know stars - indirectly through observations of radiation which has been travelling for millions or billions are years. — T Clark
I think if we want to be respected, it's up to us to gain that respect. We can't count on outsiders to just give us the benefit of the doubt when everything they see says otherwise. — TogetherTurtle
t is hypocritical to have physics without metaphysics, but those who live hypocrisy don't realize they're living it. I would assume even you and I live some sort of hypocrisy. We have to rely on others to make us question things we take for granted. — TogetherTurtle
I don't really care if philosophy is respected. I come to it for my own benefit, for what it gives me. I got here from science and math. That lead me to want to look deeper into what stands behind it. — T Clark
I don't think anything self-identified as philosophy will be able to make much of a contribution to science. Call it something else - scientific methodology, principles of science, goals of scientific investigations, the structure of scientific knowledge.
Moral and political philosophy might have more to offer. — T Clark
I don't think hypocrisy is the right word. Lack of perspective is more like it. Lack of introspection maybe. Lack of an understanding of principles. — T Clark
Aren't those things based in philosophical ideas? — TogetherTurtle
Yes, but I think they should be called something else because of the disdain and lack of understanding felt for philosophy. — T Clark
"Science" has replaced Metaphysics. Because the reasoning is better suited to task, this is not necessarily negative. — thewonder
"Science" has replaced Metaphysics. — thewonder
That is the very problem. If we have science without a purpose, science without philosophy, science will stagnate and any science that is done will be done without purpose or reason. science may have caused some of our problems, but I think it wrong to believe that knowledge can be evil in any way. It is the application of this knowledge that hurts us. I think that is one of the many places we find our use. We can use science to fix any damage we've caused to our planet, but only if we can justify doing so, of course, with a philosophical argument. — TogetherTurtle
This is what I was trying to get across before- don't let it happen. It will take more than just a handful of us, but we need to get across that this can and will happen. We can find the ideas of scientists disgusting all we like, but unless we work with them, they won't change, and we will suffer from the destruction of our world. Furthermore, if we continue to find flaws and fix them, not only philosophy in science but all of us finding flaws everywhere and fixing them, we can make this world a better place. — TogetherTurtle
But we already have science with a purpose, that purpose is Progress or Truth — leo
[Original website is here.]Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. — website
Why not solve the problem at the source? In all my time fixing things, (fixing things is a large part of my current job) temporary solutions have only caused more problems. They're ok if you need a quick fix to get through a day, but they don't last forever. If you want to want a functioning system, you need to address problems directly. — TogetherTurtle
Instead of masquerading useful philosophy as something else, we should instead prove that philosophy is useful. It's certainly possible to do so, we've already discussed the uses. — TogetherTurtle
That's a bit like saying that cage-fighting has replaced wallpaper. Apples and oranges, as they say. — Pattern-chaser
To say that the purpose of science is "Progress or Truth" is to assign aspirational aims to science, aims that are not an intrinsic part of science, nor do they define or describe its purpose. Even the definition I have quoted goes too far. Science is not a suitable tool to examine the (human) "social world". I'd go farther: the misuse of science these days mainly centres on our social world, and the complete inability of science to address it usefully. — Pattern-chaser
I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. — leo
I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. — leo
I feel like "Science" is better suited to discover what actually exists. — thewonder
But we already have science with a purpose, that purpose is Progress or Truth, which supposedly will solve all our problems. Scientists believe that what they do gives us Progress and brings us closer to Truth which will solve our problems. But they won't acknowledge that their own beliefs may be partially responsible for our problems, and that they are not necessarily getting closer to Truth, and that their achievements do not necessarily have to be seen as Progress. Philosophy is sorely needed here, to think about what they are doing, but they won't have it. — leo
Most people only listen to status and money, that's what runs the world. — leo
I disagree that science can fix any damage if we keep treating it as separate from philosophy, rather I would argue that seeing science as separate from philosophy has caused a lot of damage itself, but we still believe that we will fix our problems by applying what has caused them in the first place. — leo
I get your point, but how do you get a cult to change their mind? It's as if you're looking at a child doing something stupid, and you can tell he's going to hurt us and eventually hurt himself, but no matter what you say to him he won't listen to you. And then it's not one child, it's a billion of them. You may spend enormous effort to make one change his mind, but meanwhile ten new ones have replaced him. I don't know how to wake people up, I just don't. Even if you find flaws they don't listen, so the flaws don't get fixed. — leo
Years ago I had come to the realization that the only way they would listen is if we came up with a theory that is more simple than the ones we have now (for instance in fundamental physics), but that can explain more and predict more than the ones we have now. This way they would see the use of philosophizing about what they do, as it would be philosophy that got them out of their impasse. But then I thought, probably they still wouldn't see the use of philosophy, they would just say that whoever came up with that theory is a genius, a new Einstein, and they would misinterpret the concepts that the theory uses, and then they would build new theories on top of it while adding their own misconceptions and fallacies, and nothing would have fundamentally changed. — leo
Most people only listen to status and money, that's what runs the world. So I thought if I want to change things, I need to climb the social ladder and get a lot of money, and then I would have the power to make people really listen. But then I realized I'm not good at making money, I don't have the right mindset for it, I like to help people, I don't like to ask for something in exchange. And this society runs on people who want to take from others, not help others without asking anything in return. It's like a huge machine that can't be stopped and that will run its course until it has destroyed so much that it will die while taking almost everything with it, and meanwhile all we can do is watch. — leo
I'm not talking about a "quick fix" or "temporary solution." Science was once part of philosophy, so let's make the philosophy of science part of science. But we won't call it that, we'll call it something not freighted with negative meanings for some scientists. I love philosophy, but that doesn't obscure the fact that it really isn't anything, at least not anymore. — T Clark
I'm not suggesting masquerading, I'm talking about unmasking. The philosophy of science belongs as part of science. Splitting it off is artificial and misleading. — T Clark
That's always the hard part. — Pattern-chaser
Where does science begin and philosophy end? If we don't know that, how are we supposed to know what we call science and what philosophy? — TogetherTurtle
Is that Metaphysics, though? — thewonder
I think that I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that I would define Metaphysics as being "presuppositional". Metaphysics assumes that there are things that are "out there" that are "true". — thewonder
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.