What is now known as 'science' used to be called 'philosophy' - for example in Newton's day, he referred to his own work as 'philosophy', as did Galileo. 'Science', and those specialists who were called 'scientists' came into popular usage in the 1830's or thereabouts. However science is still in some sense 'natural philosophy' or 'philosophy of nature', that is, the philosophy of what is observable by the natural sciences.

Modern science is built around methodology that than principles as such. Arguably, scientific laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics, represent principles. But it's the methodology which is fundamental.

Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.

Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.”

E R Doherty

So the distinction with philosophy is the correspondence between theory and observation. If you have a theory which can neither be confirmed or denied by an observation, then, according to most philosophers of science, it is not a scientific theory.

With respect to rules in philosophy - there are of course the 'rules of logic' which govern what is and is not a valid argument. However some aspects of philosophy will always be speculative, i.e. not strictly rule-bound. However philosophy does have a tradition, a pedigree, if you like, which ought to inform anything undertaken as philosophy. That's why, in my view, some familiarity with the history of philosophy, from its origins with the Greeks, and up until modern times, is necessary for understanding the subject. One doesn't have to be bound by that history, but you need to be able to situate yourself in respect of it, and have some idea of what others in the tradition of philosophy have said about some philosophical questions.

Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy? — kris22

Oh my yes!

The question of how "best" or "properly" to do philosophy is part of philosophy, and always one of the most widely discussed issues. There are different "camps," to put it broadly, but even people within the same camp disagree vehemently on methodology.

The more philosophy that you read, the more you'll have a handle on these sorts of issues. You really need to read it to begin to understand it.

Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

There are no rules. New worldviews are welcome, from any quarter!

New worldviews are welcome, from any quarter! — andrewk

What about Deepak Chopra? Does his worldview count?

It's a tough one. But I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there may be some people in the world that may find his worldview spiritually fulfilling, in a way that they can achieve from no other philosophy or religion.

Socrates may would argue with that.

Hello
I have some questions:
1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines?
2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy?
3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview?

Thanks — kris22

1. Does philosophy have basic principles? Yes. Are there some undeniable truths about the things that it examines? Yes.

Does that mean that philosophy is "a science"? No (not even if we go beyond the confines of post-XVII century natural science). Philosophy is a search. It is a search guided by basic principles, and starting from some undeniable truths, but it is a search rather than a science; a philosopher (friend/lover of wisdom) is very unlike a sophist (wise man).

2. Not really. Of course philosophers disagree all the time. But you don't see philosophers disagreeing about the requirement of free enquiry, about the primacy of the individual viewpoint, stuff like that. (There are some methodological principles which cannot be disputed without clear contradiction, and avoiding contradiction is one of those non-negotiable methodological principles!)

3. Well, one strict rule (in philosophy) about creating philosophies and worldviews is that you must do it yourself, on the authority of your own conscience, i.e., not by following external sources. The immense majority of people (including philosophers when they are not engaging in The Search -- it is not an easy demand!) does exactly that, they lean themselves upon a crutch provided by history, culture, politics, religion, or some other impersonal shortcut. But the philosopher as a philosopher cannot do that. It is a strict rule :D. It is not such a strict rule on my say so, or even on Socrates' say so, but it is a constituent aspect of the philosophical activity.

Your third point resonates with me, but I wonder then about the way a philosopher speaks for a certain culture or generation. It's not a private perspective is it?

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines? — kris22

The basic principle, touted with much fanfare by philosophers, is to be *rational* - the bottomline being an ever-skeptical attitude.

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy?

Well, there is only ONE methodology in philosophy and that is to, first and foremost, apply *reason* universally. Here I think philosophy bungles up because I feel there's a lot more going on in our universe than text-book logic.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview?

Feel free to create your own private universe to the extent that it conforms to the rules of logic. Here again philosophy stumbles because this constraint virtually puts many interesting ideas (mysticism, revelation, etc) beyond the scope of philosophy.

Your third point resonates with me, but I wonder then about the way a philosopher speaks for a certain culture or generation. It's not a private perspective is it? — Mongrel

No, it's not private, but it is certainly individual. An individual does not exist in a vacuum, and there is no objective viewpoint from which he can pronounce as if from on high, but any philosophical utterance will come from the individual viewpoint, warts and all, or not be philosophical.

This links with the first point. This intrinsic limitation of the philosopher's activity is a big part of the reason why it's not a science, but a search. We are always striving to divest ourselves from the accretion from external authorities and to refer to the immediate experience.

1. Does philosophy have basic principles? Yes. Are there some undeniable truths about the things that it examines? Yes. — Mariner

So, just as physics has its undeniable principles, so in philosophy there are rules by which I can not say, for example, my views on the various aspects of human existence, because they will be in conflict with these undeniable principles?
What are these rules?

So, just as physics has its undeniable principles, so in philosophy there are rules by which I can not say, for example, my views on the various aspects of human existence, because they will be in conflict with these undeniable principles?
What are these rules? — kris22

People have mentioned logic. Logic is an important part of it. For example, you cannot state "your views" if the views are not yours. If "your views" are the views of your family, group, race, country, religion, class, then they are not "yours"; they are "received wisdom" (not that there is anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say).

In other words, there is an immense matter of responsibility when one raises his voice to say "these are my views". One should really examine his views very closely, and separate what was developed in his individual experience and what was received from antecedents.

This examination (which is the core of the Socratic "know thyself"), on the other hand, also follows rules. Closeness to the experiential basis. Sincerity with self. And reason, which is often taken as the core but which is mostly a method.

So there is no general and undeniable truth, views and rules about, for example, what is the meaning of life, how the world came into being, what is true? The principles concern only technical things like logic etc?

People have mentioned logic. Logic is an important part of it. For example, you cannot state "your views" if the views are not yours. If "your views" are the views of your family, group, race, country, religion, class, then they are not "yours"; they are "received wisdom" (not that there is anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld would say).

In other words, there is an immense matter of responsibility when one raises his voice to say "these are my views". One should really examine his views very closely, and separate what was developed in his individual experience and what was received from antecedents. — Mariner

This is a really nice distinction. It reminds me of what Schopenhauer says about reading, if I may quote him in full:

When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. It is the same as the pupil, in learning to write, following with his pen the lines that have been pencilled by the teacher. Accordingly, in reading, the work of thinking is, for the greater part, done for us. This is why we are consciously relieved when we turn to reading after being occupied with our own thoughts. But, in reading, our head is, however, really only the arena of some one else’s thoughts. And so it happens that the person who reads a great deal — that is to say, almost the whole day, and recreates himself by spending the intervals in thoughtless diversion, gradually loses the ability to think for himself; just as a man who is always riding at last forgets how to walk. Such, however, is the case with many men of learning: they have read themselves stupid. For to read in every spare moment, and to read constantly, is more paralysing to the mind than constant manual work, which, at any rate, allows one to follow one’s own thoughts. Just as a spring, through the continual pressure of a foreign body, at last loses its elasticity, so does the mind if it has another person’s thoughts continually forced upon it. And just as one spoils the stomach by overfeeding and thereby impairs the whole body, so can one overload and choke the mind by giving it too much nourishment. For the more one reads the fewer are the traces left of what one has read; the mind is like a tablet that has been written over and over. Hence it is impossible to reflect; and it is only by reflection that one can assimilate what one has read if one reads straight ahead without pondering over it later, what has been read does not take root, but is for the most part lost. Indeed, it is the same with mental as with bodily food: scarcely the fifth part of what a man takes is assimilated; the remainder passes off in evaporation, respiration, and the like.

From all this it may be concluded that thoughts put down on paper are nothing more than footprints in the sand: one sees the road the man has taken, but in order to know what he saw on the way, one requires his eyes.

A highly ironic passage to read, of course, but one that is well said, in my opinion. It's doubly ironic in that Schopenhauer basically spent his entire life reading books. Perhaps he issues this advice as a note of cation based on his own experience.

So there is no general and undeniable truth, views and rules about, for example, what is the meaning of life, how the world came into being, what is true? The principles concern only technical things like logic etc? — kris22

On the contrary, the problem is not that there is no general and undeniable truth, it is rather that there are too many, none of them is quite undeniable, and we must make commitments in order to keep on searching.

In other words, we should not go searching for stuff to be denied -- that would cover basically anything. (The human will is a many splendored thing and can deny the most obvious notions). We should go about searching for the way to articulate our own, personal and very much non-communicable experiences about these matters (meaning of life, origin of the world, etc.).

Philosophy is much more akin to poetry than to science.

No, it's not private, but it is certainly individual. An individual does not exist in a vacuum, and there is no objective viewpoint from which he can pronounce as if from on high, but any philosophical utterance will come from the individual viewpoint, warts and all, or not be philosophical.

This links with the first point. This intrinsic limitation of the philosopher's activity is a big part of the reason why it's not a science, but a search. We are always striving to divest ourselves from the accretion from external authorities and to refer to the immediate experience. — Mariner

I totally agree. Plato has Socrates say that all philosophers long for death because they long for a vantage point on life itself (the assumption being that this perspective is available to the departed.)

My experience with philosophy is that I experience some life, try to make sense of what I experienced, occasionally gain insight from reading a philosopher's writings, then go back and experience more life... over and over.

What's been your experience, if you don't mind?

What's been your experience, if you don't mind? — Mongrel

I remember a conversation I had some 15 years ago, with a very close friend (I'm the godfather of his 18 year old (!) daughter by now). We were talking about philosophy, quite nonchalantly (we were walking along the beach), and I made an offhand remark that amounted to "well, I, as a philosopher, think that..." He was a bit taken aback. "You are a philosopher?" I guess people don't think that guys on their 25 years can be philosophers. I remember my reply: "Of course I am. There is no doubt about it. You may say that I'm a bad philosopher, and you'll probably be right, but there's no mistaking the experience of being a philosopher, good or not, with its absence".

If I tried to pinpoint the experiences that turned me into a philosopher, apart from the many books -- Schopenhauer has a point but it shouldn't be stretched too far --, I'm sure they predate my consciousness of it. 15 years ago, I would say that unrequited love and walks along the beach were the stimulus, but I know better by now. (I'm a better philosopher too :D). Watching my 4-year old son grow up has shown me that I was very lucky in the very early experiences. I'm doing my best to give him what I received. Perhaps I am more conscious and articulated than my parents and close relatives in transmitting that experience, but it was not created independently by me.

I think that a philosopher is made by the sum of circumstances and openness. I received the first from my environment and the second from God (or heredity or inner nature if one does not want to be religious about it).

:)

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines? — kris22

No, in philosophy, everything is up for grabs. Schopenhauer talks about this in the beginning of one of his works (I can't remember which, I think it was The World as Will and Representation).

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy? — kris22

Absolutely, every great philosopher had their own meta-philosophy. Self-reflexive criticism is the greatest asset of philosophy, because no other discipline can do it.

Kant had the idea that one does not "learn" philosophy, otherwise it would be subjective-historical. When one studies philosophy, they are studying all the previous attempts people had with philosophy. They are learning how to do philosophy by learning how others did it.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

The rules are, be logical, rational, consistent, creative, honest, determined, etc. Also it helps to be a brilliant genius.

There's no way for you to know that if you don't read Plato. ;-)

Intressting, but
- I did writed once, but it has been deleted from the forum, now i try it again. Of course none of you need to belive me.
Before I was born, I‘ve heard a voice it sad: ‘‘ Nem hihetsz semmiben‘‘ (Hungarian) transleted to English it means:
1. You can not belive in anything.
2. You can not belive in nothing.
When I heard it, I started to laugh, and I was laughing while I was born.
Now according to Plato‘s Socrates I think i may have just convinced that ‘‘Daimon‘‘ because I didn‘t heard any voice since that.
But to reply to your point, I did know that I know nothing even before I read Plato‘s dialogues.
Now let me ask you, If I can listen to someone who is reading the dialogues loudly, or to listen the dialogues on Audiobook, isn‘t that just another way to think, that you know! Socrates views on the object?
Althoght I think you made a good point here, because there is only a few of the dialogues in audio format, so it is hard to see the picture, without letting Plato into our mind.
By the when i writed ‘‘Socrates may would argue with that.‘‘ I presumed, that he actually did it, like hi did the same thing with the ‘‘shadows‘‘ in his defence, but instead of writing it down he decided to make you think about it, and he sad: ‘‘The invention of writing will produce forgetfulness in the minds of those who learn to use it, because they will not practice their memory. Their trust in writing, produced by external characters which are no part of themselves, will discourage the use of their own memory within them. You have invented an elixir not of memory, but of reminding; and you offer your pupils the appearance of wisdom, not true wisdom.‘‘

Philosophy is not a science, though science arguably falls under the general scope/umbrella of philosophy. Science is a tool, so to speak, which may be utilized towards broader philosophical ends and which operates within certain epistemological and metaphysical frameworks.

There aren't really any "rules" in philosophy per se. I am tempted to say that the laws of logic and rationality are what guide philosophy, but this is admittedly a somewhat eurocentric interpretation as western philosophy has a different position on this than eastern philosophy. Eastern philosophers are much less concerned about contradicting themselves than the analytic philosophers so many people are familiar with. Yet I would not exclude them from the realm of philosophy or the history of philosophic thought.

That doesn't mean philosophy is a free-for-all though. I think what is important is that individual schools of thought are internally consistent and contain some kind of cogent position on metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, etc. Otherwise I am not sure what their purpose would be.

This examination (which is the core of the Socratic "know thyself"), on the other hand, also follows rules. Closeness to the experiential basis. Sincerity with self. And reason, which is often taken as the core but which is mostly a method. — Mariner

I think this is a bit too feelgood. I would argue - pragmatically - that philosophical reasoning is just like scientific reasoning in being a method of theory and measurement. Or the stepping back (from the self, from the world) into an abstraction from where observation (of "the self" and "the world") is then concretely made. We form some idea that is philosophically general, then we test how well it seems to apply in our particular case.

So a reasoning method - which gives an articulate basis to the self examination - is indeed the core. We step back in a formalised manner, one taught as Socratic method, so that we can return to the thing in itself, our own experience, with some clear hypothesis about what that experience should actually be (or how it should function pragmatically as a sign relating our formal constructs to the measureables we articulate - the factual results we then claim as what is the case).

Philosophy is not a poetic free for all. It is a scientific method of inquiry. The difference with science is that it is not so demanding of the notion of empirical validation.

As a discipline, it does not seek to close down "wrong avenues" of inquiry. What counts as acceptable measurement - like poetry, feelings, values - is as relaxed as possible to encourage the habit of speculation.

And also, conventionally, the emphasis is on working out every possible formal variation of a possible theory. Like maths, there is value seen even in "abstract nonsense" as again dumb ideas might turn out to be fruitful after all. Crazy lines of thought are good if they are an exercise in experimenting with what sets of logical rules might produce.

So philosophy is a science in depending on the same essential method - formalising constructs and then seeing what results from particularising our experience of the world, of ourselves, from within that constructed framework. It is then different from science in also seeing the value of giving human invention free range.

It becomes a storehouse of every possible way of thinking about things - because who knows when junk might be useful. And who could know what junk looks like unless there was some place you could go an check out its vast variety. ;)

1. Is philosophy as a science having some basic principles or some undeniable truth about the things that it examines? — kris22

Question that which you don't understand. Let yourself think freely. Try to make sense of things.

2. Is there a discussion among other people in the methodology of philosophy? — kris22

We're having one right now.

3. Are there strict rules in philosophy such as in mathematics, or can anyone create his own philosophy and worldview? — kris22

No shitposting, flaming or trolling, it seems.

So a reasoning method - which gives an articulate basis to the self examination - is indeed the core. We step back in a formalised manner, one taught as Socratic method, so that we can return to the thing in itself, our own experience, with some clear hypothesis about what that experience should actually be (or how it should function pragmatically as a sign relating our formal constructs to the measureables we articulate - the factual results we then claim as what is the case). — apokrisis

If I understand what you are saying, you think that philosophy involves the development of hypotheses from an abstract viewpoint and then a testing of those hypotheses against the concrete experience. I strongly disagree with that. I never read the work of any philosopher who worked like that. I know I don't. In my experience (both as a thinker and as a reader) philosophy involves the close attention to the concrete experience, but not the attention of a scientist who tests hypotheses; it is much more like the attention of a lover to the object of his love. A philosopher contemplates his experiences and tries to articulate them in discourse.

It is not a free for all, as you said, because this "tries to articulate them in discourse" involves rules (like those I mentioned, as well as others), but it is an activity grounded in the concrete experience.

it is much more like the attention of a lover to the object of his love. — Mariner

Hmm. But love is blind they say. Some believe we are meant to look past the loved one's flaws.

And indeed, much of what passes for philosophical debate in these parts is a sophistic argument in favour of a desired belief.

So how is philosophical method meant to distinguish between the use of argumentation as a sophistical prop vs as a true means of inquiry?

And if you have "never" come across the advocation of scientific style reasoning before in philosophy - the triadic arc of abductive hypothesis, deduction consequence and inductive validation - then its pretty explicit in Peircean Pragmatism at least.

Science v Philosophy: it shouldn't be viewed as an adversarial relationship. They are complementary approaches of equal value in problem-solving. The exclusive practise of either one is an affront to reason, resulting in groupthink and poor problem-solving.

If I understand what you are saying, you think that philosophy involves the development of hypotheses from an abstract viewpoint and then a testing of those hypotheses against the concrete experience. I strongly disagree with that. I never read the work of any philosopher who worked like that. — Mariner

Well, the original intent of philosophy was to follow a way of life, to attain a state of wisdom, characterised by freedom from worry (apatheia), equanimity, and so forth. But in this case, the subject and the object are the same - the hypothesis concerns 'how one lives' and the observation concerns one's subjective sense of the benefits of that discipline, as explored by the historian of philosophy, Pierre Hadot:

Hadot’s founding meta-philosophical claim is that since the time of Socrates, in ancient philosophy “the choice of a way of life [was] not . . . located at the end of the process of philosophical activity, like a kind of accessory or appendix. On the contrary, its stands at the beginning, in a complex interrelationship with critical reaction to other existential attitudes . . .” (WAP 3). All the schools agreed that philosophy involves the individual’s love of and search for wisdom. All also agreed, although in different terms, that this wisdom involved “first and foremost . . . a state of perfect peace of mind,” as well as a comprehensive view of the nature of the whole and humanity’s place within it. They concurred that attaining to such Sophia, or wisdom, was the highest Good for human beings.

Where it differs from religion is that eschews dogma, although in the modern context, the view of ancient philosophy appears religious.

So how is philosophical method meant to distinguish between the use of argumentation as a sophistical prop vs as a true means of inquiry? — apokrisis

First of all, by acknowledging that argumentation can be used for both purposes, and therefore cannot be the core of philosophy.

After this step is over (and it is not an easy step), one is usually at a loss to understand what philosophy is about; and then the best thing to do is to go back to the sources (by which I don't even mean Plato, I mean Socrates). How would one distinguish Socrates from, say, Protagoras? Aristophanes had trouble with that, and it is safe to say many people would have problems too. Both presented themselves as a kind of teacher, both had followers, both were competitors in the "academic field". True, Protagoras and the other people known as 'the sophists' used to charge good fees, and Socrates didn't, but is this a good criterion? Would Protagoras be a philosopher if he did not charge good fees for his lessons?

I could give an answer of my own to this problem, but the core of philosophy involves finding one's own answer and, as it were, picking sides between philosophers and sophists. Indeed, philosophy requires sophistry as a contrast. Both are manifestations of the human psyche in response to the shattering of the mythical worldview. But they are not the same, and they are not equally valuable.