Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?

Skalidris

First, by “science-based philosophy”, I mean a discipline that would focus on the study of abstract concepts (just like philosophy does) but using a totally different method than philosophy. Instead of gathering data from everything that’s been produced by philosophy so far, it would start from scientific concepts (whether it is in biology, chemistry, or physics), so that the bases of the discipline are experiments, which, in my opinion, is a more objective window to the world than any other tools. The first consequence of this is that it would exclude a lot of topics that can’t be related to sciences with logic. For example, there is no concept in sciences which can help discuss the existence of God, so this matter would be ignored, and maybe left out for philosophy. It would question things like the human behaviour in a broader picture than psychology, the mind, life, the nature of ethics, space, infinity, logic, …

The point of comparison would only apply to the topics these two disciplines have in common. For example, philosophy also discusses what logic is, there is also a philosophy of the mind, etc. My question is, for those topics, which method do you think would work best? (by best, I mean having a greater potential of being useful in other disciplines, or in the society).

Example:

I think the concept of evolution already gives a much broader picture of life then any other scientific concepts ever did before. Evolutionary psychology already tries to analyse the human behaviour in terms of evolution but unfortunately, there are a lot of criticism about the accuracy of the claims made by this discipline, simply because they ignore some aspects of evolution, and jump into conclusions without exposing the uncertainties. My conclusion is that it is indeed very difficult to link scientific theories with more abstract concept, but not impossible. And if a method was created to do it in the best way, we could try to come up with reasonable knowledge, without being greedy wanting to try to explain everything. In my opinion, it could already offer a more accurate vision of the world, which could then be useful in the future.

P.S : I made this thread as the continuum of my previous thread “Would an “independent” thinker be wiser than an academic/famous philosopher?”.

Note:

This discipline does not aim to completely replace philosophy, a lot of subjects can't be discussed with scientific concept. Also, it is VERY different from science, and would not do any experiments. In other words, the aim would be to try to come up with concepts that arise from scientific theories, and these concepts would be abstract and not directly useful for sciences.

Jackson

It seems that you're interested in science and not philosophy. Hard to get much more than that from your explanation.

Skalidris

It seems that you're interested in science and not philosophy. Hard to get much more than that from your explanation. — Jackson

No, I can tell you scientists aren't interested in that. It's not the role of science to try to paint a bigger picture of the reality, that's philosophy.
For example, I came up to a biology professor who was "debating" the notion of an individual, then I tried to get a definition out of him, which he couldn't produce, because he said it's too "complex". And there isn't any research on how to define that term, why? Because it's useless for biologists to define an individual, the use of that term isn't really important in their work. Why do I care about defining what an individual is? Because I care about the bigger picture, the representation of the world, that is a philosophical essence to me.

Jackson

No, I can tell you scientists aren't interested in that. It's not the role of science to try to paint a bigger picture of the reality, that's philosophy.
For example, I came up to a biology professor who was "debating" the notion of an individual, then I tried to get a definition out of him, which he couldn't produce, because he said it's too "complex". And there isn't any research on how to define that term, why? Because it's useless for biologists to define an individual, the use of that term isn't really important in their work. Why do I care about defining what an individual is? Because I care about the bigger picture, the representation of the world, that is a philosophical essence to me. — Skalidris

Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why.

Skalidris

Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why. — Jackson

I didn't reject the idea, I asked for an example, which you never gave. Can you please give me a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts?

Jackson

a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts? — Skalidris

The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts.

Skalidris

The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts. — Jackson

Then it really shouldn't be too hard for you to find an example, right? Why don't you give one?

Jackson

Then it really shouldn't be too hard for you to find an example, right? Why don't you give one? — Skalidris

If you really have no idea what philosophers of science do then you need to find out. I mean, this is extremely elementary.

Skalidris

If you really have no idea what philosophers of science do then you need to find out. I mean, this is extremely elementary — Jackson

If you could give me an example, I could show you how it is different from what I mean. But you won't do it so I assume you're not interested in debating anymore, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

Jackson

you're not interested in debating anymore — Skalidris

correct

Hillary

↪Skalidris

It would do away with Popper 's methodology!

Skalidris

It would do away with Popper 's methodology! — Hillary

Absolutely not, Popper is talking about science, about the method, about what qualifies as science, so this is philosophy of science, not a science-based philosophy. Unless I'm missing another part of his work that I'm not aware of?

Angelo Cannata

I think your question is very important, especially today. In my perception, today’s philosophy is going more and more towards a scientific way of considering questions. Perhaps this is an effect of the weight that the “analytic” philosophy is going to have in philosophers’ minds, in opposition to “continental” philosophy. I think this is going to be a big loss in philosophy.

As you wrote,

is a more objective window — Skalidris

. That’s exactly the problem: philosophy is going to ignore more and more what cannot be grasped in an objective way. What cannot be grasped in an objective way is precisely subjectivity and everything related to it, like, for example, relativism, consciousness. With this “scientific drift” of philosophy, a dangerous mentality can become more and more a normal habit of thinkers: the mentality of thinking “what I cannot understand, what I cannot grasp, does not exist, or is not worthy of interest”. According to some philosophers, for example, Chalmers’ “hard problem of consciousness” does not exist, simply because it cannot be defined objectively. Similarly, consciousness is being explored by philosophy as a phenomenon whose ultimate answer is expected to be given by neuron sciences. More dramatically, the problem of subjectivity, which I mean, relativism, just does not exist. Relativism is considered only in the perspective of social relativism, that can be easily turned into an objective phenomenon. For example, morality is subjective, because different people in society think differently, but this social perspective makes philosophers think that, once we understood the social dependencies that cause different opinions, we have ultimately gained an objective final image of the question. Essentially, what happens is that the philosopher forgets and ignores their own subjective existence; subjectivity is the plurality of others’ opinions, forgetting that this is being thought inside the subjectivity of who is thinking of it.

There is a tiny opposite tendency that is going to be explored in the world: it is philosophy as experience, as meditation, as a chance for an experience of meeting between people, where what is most important is not the discussed topic, but the persons who are meeting each other. This recovers philsophy as a spiritual experience, as it was in ancient Greek, as Pierre Hadot has shown. This way philosophy explores more deeply its connections with literature, art, music, life. These connections are going to be ignored by philosophers with an “analytic”, which is scientific, tendency.

Hillary

Absolutely not, Popper is talking about science, about the method, about what qualifies as science, so this is philosophy of science, not a science-based philosophy. — Skalidris

Yes, but is it based on how science actually works? No. He offers a caricature. A scientist as a nervous falsifying machine.

dimosthenis9

↪Skalidris

Philosophy's goal should be to contribute to the search of truth for humans. And science is the only verified "human truth" we have. Science shows the road via knowledge.

So yes, a philosophy that is based on science and its facts would be a much better servant for that role. Again I repeat, that is the case If we set the goal of philosophy on helping humans find out as more "truth" as they can.

And for me that should be one the most important roles of philosophy, probably the most important one

Jackson

And science is the only verified "human truth" we have. Science shows the road via knowledge. — dimosthenis9

I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. Not being contentious.

dimosthenis9

I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. — Jackson

Can't help you with that.

Jackson

Can't help you with that. — dimosthenis9

I was not asking you for help.

Hillary

Philosophy's goal should be to contribute to the search of truth — dimosthenis9

The search for truth? Why is that so important?

Hillary

I cannot think of a single thing from science that helps me understand the world. — Jackson

Science only describes. It doesn't make one truly understand.

dimosthenis9

↪Hillary

It is when you are curious. And curiosity is what fueled humanity as to make all that long journey of knowledge till nowadays.
Not necessarily of course that all people are or should be curious.

Hillary

It is when you are curious — dimosthenis9

As long one is not blinded by that search, it's okay, I guess. Sometimes the truth can turn out to be a mass hallucination, while the real truth is dismissed because of that longing.

dimosthenis9

Sometimes the truth can turn out to be a mass hallucination, while the real truth is dismissed because of that longing. — Hillary

Finding that out is also included in the search of truth progress.

jgill

Physics, e.g., is about "hows" rather than "whys". Philosophy can dabble in the later, but not the former.

Jackson

Science only describes. It doesn't make one truly understand. — Hillary

That seems right.

Joshs

↪jgill

Physics, e.g., is about "hows" rather than "whys". Philosophy can dabble in the later, but not the former. — jgill

Given that the ‘ hows’ get their orientation , sense and coherence from the ‘why’s’, I’m not sure how a philosophy could avoid a stance on the ‘hows’. In the same vein, every new ‘how’ generated within physics subtly challenges or adjusts an implicit ‘why’ framing their ‘hows’ , although this tends to go unnoticed by the physicist.

As philosopher of science Joseph Rouse puts it:

“ I am questioning any sharp or even significant boundaries between science and other meaningful comportments as practices that allow entities to show themselves intelligibly. My examples were chosen because they can neither be rightly described as scientific determinations of how things matter to us, nor as sociocultural determinations of scientific significance. Rather, they show how scientific understanding is integral to a larger historical disclosure of possibilities, within which scientific practices acquire and transform their issues and stakes.”

Joshs

↪Jackson

Science only describes. It doesn't make one truly understand.
— Hillary

That seems right. — Jackson

That’s what Heidegger thought. But philosopher of science Joseph Rouse argues that science frequently does play the kind of role people tend to associate with philosophy.

Jackson

But philosopher of science Joseph Rouse argues that science frequently does play the kind of role people tend to associate with philosophy. — Joshs

I've studied a lot of science in college and on my own. I can't really say there is anything from science that has helped me understand the world. A few things, maybe, but mostly not.

Jackson

But philosopher of science Joseph Rouse argues that science frequently does play the kind of role people tend to associate with philosophy. — Joshs

I've read things by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Sean Carroll that were philosophical and insightful. But most of science is as interesting as reading an accounting textbook.

T Clark

Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy? — Skalidris

I think this question shows a fundamental misconception of what philosophy is and what it's role is in human understanding of the world. First, let's strip away those aspects of philosophy that have nothing much to do with science - Ethics and morals, aesthetics, politics, maybe religion. That leaves us with metaphysics, including ontology and epistemology. I see other disciplines; e.g. philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and philosophy of language; as included within those branches.

Ontology investigates the nature of reality. Epistemology investigates what we know about the nature of reality, how we know it, and how certain we are of it. Together, ontology and epistemology set the rules for knowledge, including science. The fact that we live in a universe which is understandable and behaves in coherent and consistent ways is an ontological principle. The scientific method is a set of epistemological rules.

Science can't pull itself up by it's bootstraps. That's the thing, one of the things, that philosophy is needed for.

Joshs

↪Jackson

I've read things by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and Sean Carroll that were philosophical and insightful. But most of science is as interesting as reading an accounting textbook. — Jackson

I guess it was the implications of the sciences I was first exposed to that bowled me over. First came Einstein , which amazed me when I was 16, then Darwin. Darwin completely revolutionized the thinking of a generation of philosophers. American Pragmatism would have been impossible without him. Freud was less of an influence on me but Piaget’s approach tremendously impressed me, showing a way to connect the aspirations of religious thought with empiricism. Chomsky’s transformational grammar, and The Gestalt psychologists certainly stirred my imagination( and also the imagination of phenomenological philosopher Merleau-Ponty).
More recently , the autopoietic model of Varela and Maturana was a significant advance in psychological as well as biological thinking.

Would a “science-based philosophy” be “better” than the contemporary philosophy?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions