And since Truth cannot manifest on the physical plane of existence, what does that say about both science and philosophy, since both ignore and deny three-quarters of the Whole of Existence? — 1 Brother James
Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence
According to Whewell, all knowledge has both an ideal, or subjective dimension, as well as an objective dimension. He called this the “fundamental antithesis” of knowledge. Whewell explained that “in every act of knowledge … there are two opposite elements, which we may call Ideas and Perceptions” (1860a, 307). He criticized Kant and the German Idealists for their exclusive focus on the ideal or subjective element, and Locke and the “Sensationalist School” for their exclusive focus on the empirical, objective element. Like Francis Bacon, Whewell claimed to be seeking a “middle way” between pure rationalism and ultra-empiricism. Whewell believed that gaining knowledge requires attention to both ideal and empirical elements, to ideas as well as sensations. These ideas, which he called “Fundamental Ideas,” are “supplied by the mind itself”—they are not (as Mill and Herschel protested) merely received from our observations of the world. Whewell explained that the Fundamental Ideas are “not a consequence of experience, but a result of the particular constitution and activity of the mind, which is independent of all experience in its origin, though constantly combined with experience in its exercise” (1858a, I, 91). Consequently, the mind is an active participant in our attempts to gain knowledge of the world, not merely a passive recipient of sense data. — SEP Entry on Whewell
think that Philosophers is all that we are.
Existence can not be proven and I have been to the Mountaintop — Rxspence
I can't discern in that article any reference to Whewell having created the term 'scientist'. — Wayfarer
Coleridge, old and frail, had dragged himself to Cambridge and was determined to make his point. Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas. The remark was intended to be both a compliment and a slight. Science was everyday labor and philosophy was lofty thought.
One hasn't become the other and in no substantial sense were they ever synonymous; natural philosophy and the natural sciences are just complementary practices such that the former is always implicit in the latter and the latter constrains and informs the former.Natural philosophers (aka philosophers of science) propose 'interpretations' of the current claims (models) of the sciences.
Scientists investigate natural phenomena via abductive 'conjectures and refutations'.
Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science seem to me hallmarks of "bad philosophy".How can you determine good from bad philosophy? — Tom Storm
Science needs critical reasoning — Wheatley
I doubt it's impossible to do good science without peer review. Peer review might help reduce the odds of error, but it doesn't guarantee it.Science needs critical reasoning, data, and peer review — Wheatley
Supplementary response: Can there be a wrong mountaintop if there is only one view?
Or were you referring to the left mountaintop? — Rxspence
Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers. — Rxspence
Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of materialism. — Some Guy
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Bertrand Russell
A performer will often take a stage name because their real name is considered unattractive, dull, or unintentionally amusing; projects an undesired image; is difficult to pronounce or spell; or is already being used by another notable individual, including names that are not exactly the same but still too similar. — Wikipedia
Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)
No.
Never.
Next subject, please. — ssu
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.