Yeah I forgot to mention that in some cases IS dogmatic! And good it does. If science shows Earth isn't flat and some still believe it is, well yeah good then that science doesn't leave any space to such nonsense. — dimosthenis9
No, I want to create something else that is restricted to scientific theories as the basis of the reasoning, not the scientific method. Did everyone miss the part where I said I don't want to replace philosophy? That I'm only comparing the topics these two would have in common? — Skalidris
Look what I found on Quora. An excerpt:
If you mean someone who will come up with a revolutionary theory, I am not sure there will be one. The first requirement is NOT to work in a large group. Large groups need funding, and funding does not go to people playing in left field, and worse, large groups require group think.
A telltale...(is that the right expression?) — Hillary
How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias
If I count the odds than my assessment is that you dream of coming up with one but will not do so. — Tobias
The "science-based Philosophy" is the study of a subject that is done through the scientific method that renders verifiable findings by observation or experience rather than theory or subjective approach via logic. — Rocco Rosano
Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure — Hillary
Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history — Tobias
The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big. — Tobias
Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? — Tobias
Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics. — Skalidris
I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to.You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to. — Skalidris
Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that. — Skalidris
Not many. Newton, Galilei, Einstein, Bohr, Bohm, Smolin, Strominger, etc. to name a few all worked quite independently and were trendsetters. — Hillary
Besides the syntactically wrong sentence, your assessment is wrong. How do you know? Statistics? Don't make me laugh... — Hillary
Yes and what are the odds that we see Hillary up there? You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton? — Tobias
You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks. — Tobias
but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves. — Tobias
I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to. — Tobias
My conclusion as well. — Jackson
Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas? — Skalidris
I thought you said you didn't want to argue anymore, what happened to that? — Skalidris
I read your OP. You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks. — Tobias
How many people dream of coming up with a revolutionary theory you imagine? How many really do? — Tobias
You know how many physicists there are in the world who dream of one day becoming Newton? — Tobias
"Dear mother of gods..." And your reading comprehension, I gave an example and took it from there. This is not necessarily my opinion. — Tobias
Views that are right are shunned, ridiculed, argumented to death, or banned...
— Hillary
Views that are based upon repeatable peer-reviewed scientific results? — creativesoul
The point is, that these exactly could be wrong. — Hillary
I'm not following you. You claimed that science(in general) ridiculed some other scientists(presumably a minority) who were "right". — creativesoul
Here is An Example on this very forum. — jgill
I think his general point is that philosophy should have as a general starting point science facts.
Of course science doesn't have all the answers for everything. But we should have huge respect to it . And it is the best "method" we have as humans to verify these "answers". — dimosthenis9
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.