I think you are talking about the past, and in fact quite far back. I will quote myself from an earlier post: "Science started to be a separate subject a long time ago, even before the term "science" was formulated in the 19th century, acquiring such names as "epistemology" in early 16th century, etc. So, today they are two different fields of knowledge." — Alkis Piskas
One difference between philosophy and science is that philosophy insists on logical certainty, which is a category error when applied to the empirical world. This is why progress is so scant. — hypericin
somebody answered the topic's question, and it got no attention. — god must be atheist
What was the answer? — Joshs
I think there has been progress in philosophy.
Not too much, and the steps of progress are hindered by counter-arguments, but the hindering is done mainly by lay philosophers, not by professional ones.
Steps I know of:
1. rejection of deities' ruling the world and supernatural forces exerting influence on the natural world.
2. rejection of our perception of reality as a reliable thing to depend on to know what's out there. (Plato.)
3. "Cogito Ergo Sum" -- the only thing that is empirical knowledge yet it is proven to be necessarily true.
4. recognition of causation being a potentially mistaken effect, due to recurring coincidences. (Hume.)
5. recognition of empirical methods being useful. I can't tie it to one single philosopher.
6. Darwin's and the newer scientific neo-Darwinist evolution-theory. Evolution is a mechanism, in principle, and it's applied to living things, in practice.
7. recognition of illogical events in the real world, that defy the law of non-contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. (Quantum theory.) This has given rise to the thought that the a priori truths we all accept as infallible are a product of our evolutionary minds. Our evolutionary minds never had to deal with things, because they never observed them, like going from place A to place B without traversing the distance between A and B.
I am not a professional philosopher. The professionals mainly deal (in my imagination, and I need to be corrected if necessary) with micro-issues in philosophy, such as "if the Earth was a breast, where would its nipple be?" (originally asked by my teacher and master, Paul. A. S.) — god must be atheist
I think there has been progress in philosophy.
Not too much, and the steps of progress are hindered by counter-arguments, but the hindering is done mainly by lay philosophers, not by professional ones.
Steps I know of: — god must be atheist
On the whole the history of philosophy runs in parallel with the history of science , so if one progresses, the other must also. They are joined at the hip. — Joshs
Assume for a moment that science is a huge ocean liner moving slowly through a deep sea. Where do you see philosophy in this picture? — jgill
Analogously, I see philosophy as the Ship of Theseus (i.e. continuously repairing itself in dry dock by replacing worn-out parts) and science as Neurath's Boat (i.e. continuously rebuilding itself while at sea by replacing more suboptimal parts with less suboptimal parts).Assume for a moment that science is a huge ocean liner moving slowly through a deep sea. Where do you see philosophy in this picture? — jgill
e.g.Every major historical advance in the sciences is paralleled (and usually preceded) by a corresponding advance in philosophy. — Joshs
Copernican heliocentricity?
Newton's gravity?
Darwinian evolution?
Germ theory of disease?
Boltzman's thermodynamics?
Einsteinian Relativity theories?
Hubble's Red Shift (expanding universe)?
Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty?
Universal Turing Machine?
Shannon's Information Entropy?
Frick and Watson's double helix? — 180 Proof
It might be a lot simpler just to list the paradigm shifts in empirical science over the past 400 years — Joshs
A patent lack of discipline to stay with the topic or even bother about the topic. Everyone instead just blathers on about anything that comes to their mind. — god must be atheist
I just observed that the topic "Is there an external material world?" at the moment of writing this has reached 33 pages and is very close to 1000 responses! — Alkis Piskas
Science is advancing. This is very obvious. But is philosophy? — Alkis Piskas
There have been very few significant philosophical advances in the past 100 years. At this point in history, philosophy is definitely not advancing. — Merkwurdichliebe
Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein — Joshs
So that must mean there must have been very few significant scientific advances in the past 100 years. — Joshs
Since when? — Joshs
:smirk: :up:Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein
— Joshs
Name five contributions from any of those philosophers that have significantly advanced philosophy. — Merkwurdichliebe
Sophists had other purposes than establishing truths! I think you know what ...think, for example, about the sophists, who tried to show how tricky our language and our thinking is — Angelo Cannata
Heractlitus was not taking about abtract ideas like "truth". He was talking mainly about the physical universe. His famous statement, "No man ever steps in the same river twice" refers to time and change in the physical universe. You can also think of this: if his statement was referring also to abtract ideas, like "truth", then the "ever changing" feature would apply to his statement itself, and he would be thus contradicting himself, because he certainly considered his statement as a truth!Heraclitus: if everything is becoming, then an established truth cannot exist, it will be becoming as well — Angelo Cannata
There's no objectivity in philosopy. It's all subjective: opinions, viewpoints, arguments etc. Your above statement is based on your reality, your knowledge, your reasoning and your experience.Science doesnt differ from philosophy in terms of method , such as objectivity or testability, — Joshs
Examples, please.Every major historical advance in the sciences is paralleled (and usually preceded) by a corresponding advance in philosophy. — Joshs
OK.I posted some nonsense in that thread. I think the advantage of those threads — Merkwurdichliebe
Isn't this a loud contradiction? — Alkis Piskas
The principle of non-contradiction is "subjective"?There's no objectivity in philoso[ph]y. It's all subjective ... — Alkis Piskas
Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida, Kuhn, Rorty, Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, Wittgenstein
— Joshs
Name five contributions from any of those philosophers that have significantly advanced philosophy. Then we can argue about what constitutes a significant philosophical advancement. — Merkwurdichliebe
So that must mean there must have been very few significant scientific advances in the past 100 years.
— Joshs
I disagree. I would be interested to see how you came up with that meaning from what i wrote. — Merkwurdichliebe
You would first have to have read and understood these writers, or those contributing today to the leading edge of empirical research who find the work of these philosophers indispensable to their investigations. My simply naming contributions, which I could easily do, would make no sense otherwise. — Joshs
You assume science advances but philosophy hasn’t in the past 100 years. I am arguing that all scientific paradigms are examples of philosophical discourse , worldviews rendered into a more conventional language. — Joshs
So the advance of science presupposes the advance of philosophy. Furthermore, in any historical period one can find cross-over writers who move back and forth between a scientific and philosophical form of exposition, showing the rest of us the relevance of philosophical work to science. — Joshs
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.