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

Wait I'm confused : "is"? Like it actually exists?

Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure — Hillary

Yeah careful, we're coming, be prepared.

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven — chiknsld

Yep that works too!

Why would that be? — Jackson

Because it's in the concept itself ;)

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

I think you understood that I wanted to remove philosophy and do sciences only, which is absolutely not what I meant.

If you want to explain everything there is simply no way to do it through science. — chiknsld

I suggest you read again my OP where I explicitly say that it wouldn't try to explain everything, and that some topics would be left for philosophy.

you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method — Tobias

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?

You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear — Tobias

No, in the example, I talk about the uncertainties, and about why it lead to poor theories when they tried something like that with evolutionnary psychology. And yes, how it is done is probably unclear for you, so you're saying it's impossible to do it well?

Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought — Tobias

You totally misunderstood what I meant. Just because there would be a discipline that's dependent on scientific theories doesn't mean I encourage reductionism. Again, I DO NOT WANT TO DESTROY PHILOSOPHY. Or even believes, keep all that, the point of comparison does not apply to these.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Please do. — Jackson

Okay, I will make another thread because I don't think this is really relevant to the main question anymore.

I'm trying my best to explain the method I would use, which would be based on scientific theories, but you do not seem to want to know more about it. Shall I explain it in more details? Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it?

"Can there be a proof of God?"

This is an interesting question, but even if we can find a proof that God exists, can we also find a proof of how God was created? What if another God created God? Can we find proofs for all the Gods? What if there is an infinite number of Gods?

I think if we find a proof, we wouldn't call it God anymore. And another thing we call God would appear, because the fact that it cannot be proven is part of the God concept...

I never said that. — Jackson

There :

Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular. — Jackson

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy. — Jackson

You referred to these branches of philosophy when I exposed my ideas (but never succeeded to prove how it matches).

Yes, correct. — Jackson

Okay, but I don't want to follow these rules, that's the point of the topic.

What are these rules? — Jackson

Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion. — Jackson

That seems like a rule to me. I can't limit it to the physical world, that's what you said.

Sorry, I really do not understand this allegation. — Jackson

Well, you keep telling me my ideas already are part of philosophy, until the point where you say I can't do that (in the previous quote). Like a religious person would tell you everything is in the bible, except for what the bible doesn't allow.

In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion. — Tobias

In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here!

when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy — Tobias

You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia.

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... — Skalidris

There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy.

Science only explains the motion of physical particles. Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion. — Jackson

Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion.

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy. — Jackson

Yeah okay, I didn't use the right words. I meant based on scientific theories that are based on experiments, so the field itself wouldn't do experiments. I don't see how you could hope to prove such abstract concepts with experiments...

what standard are you using to determine what actual knowledge is? — Jackson

Something that can't be compared to art xD That is created following a rigorous method, which you and Tobias seemed to say was absent in philosophy. And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking.

What is your standard for philosophical knowledge? — Jackson

What do you mean?

They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic. — Tobias

And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion.

Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences. — Tobias

Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"?

It is like saying that anyone can be an artist. That's fine. Now show your work to other people. Convince a gallery to put on a show.
Get people to write about. Same in philosophy. — Jackson

Art shows creativity, it does not produce knowledge, unlike philosophy... Art doesn't publish papers... Where do you live? Have you ever been in academia in philosophy? Because here in Europe, I can assure you there is a method and you wouldn't be able to publish anything if you don't follow it. They take that very seriously. They almost see it as a science, certainly not as art.

We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have — Tobias

Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)?

Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? — Tobias

Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community.

Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. — Tobias

What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... How do you think they decide who's going to be published and who's not? If there is no method, how can it be a discipline?

philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed. — Tobias

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so.

Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field. — Tobias

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way.

I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. — Tobias

But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself...

I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument — Tobias

Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that.

Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers? — Tobias

I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks?

Those are not topics discussed in philosophy — Tobias

Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology.

Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime. — Tobias

Does that mean no one should start doing it?

But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training. — Tobias

What? No, that's not what I implied, it can't be compared, it's not the same field of study, how can one be better than the other? But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself?

Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand. — Tobias

No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher.

Is your "independent thinker" aware of philosophical history or not, because I think that is a crucial point to consider — Janus

Okay, I'll try one more time. I've only been talking about an independent thinker from philosophy, meaning they could have knowledge about everything, science, psychology, history, but would discuss "philosophical" topics without following the method in philosophy, without trying to criticise previous philosophers. But yes, there's still a problem because philosophy is part of history, so they couldn't be totally unaware of it, let's just then say that they could study it to understand the historical context, but for example, if they're trying to figure out what consciousness means, they're not going to check out what philosophers say about it, or at least not as a basis of their work.

No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance. — Tobias

Now I feel like you're not making any effort to understand what I mean. Is an illiterate going to become a famous writer out of his pocket? Of course not. But imagine they're trying to make a faster vehicle. You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect).

Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance?

Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? — Tobias

Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example.

But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? — Tobias

They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method.

Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. — Tobias

Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays.

Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former. — Tobias

Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages?

And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it. — Tobias

By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing...

It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you — Tobias

Yes, that was arbitrarily but don't worry, I don't plan to take over the dictionary and change the definition, I'm just trying to communicate on a forum over the internet ;)

but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise — Tobias

Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions.

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. — Tobias

What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy?

It all depends on which "independent thinker" and which "academic philosopher" wouldn't you say? How can you generalize about such a comparison? — Janus

Yes, I meant a "perfect" version of both.

If you try to start from scratch you will probably repeat mistakes which have already been corrected within the tradition, or come up with ideas which are well-worn and could have been acquired with far less effort by being familiar with the tradition. Would it be wise not to avail oneself of the fruits of sustained philosophical efforts others have made? — Janus

Okay, imagine you live during the Middle Age and try to understand the world around you. Would you study the thoughts of the many ecclesiastics around you? Would you criticize bits of their theories or would you start from scratch? This example is a bit extreme but do you get my point? If you've found a method that is totally different from what already exists, it doesn't make sense to try and criticize a theory that uses another method. That's exactly why creation-evolution debates are pointless to me.

To produce original ideas there has to be a starting point i. the form of a contrast with and critique of an existing philosophical stance — Joshs

But what if the starting point isn't philosophy? It could still be original and wise, couldn't it?

Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds? — Joshs

Do you mean : is science closer to wisdom than philosophy? Because that can't really be compared, it's not the same field of study. But if you mean : are theories with scientific grounds closer to wisdom than theories with philosophic grounds, for the same subject? To me, yes, because to be honest, can anyone really tell what the philosophical grounds are? It's never (rarely?) explicit. So how can we build a good logic if we don't even know where the theory came from? At least in science, we know we build it from experiments.

I used would instead of can to picture a "perfect" version of both, but maybe it wasn't obvious. Because you could have an academic philosopher who isn't wise simply because he isn't good at what he is doing, then a lot of people would be wiser and the question isn't interesting. My question is more about which method seems to lead to the wisest knowledge.

I guess it means no then, thanks for spamming this topic.

I wasn't trying to make a point yet, you reacted to a part of my post which said philosophical theories don't try to have scientific grounds but mostly have philosophical grounds, then you said it does, then I asked for an example, as simple as that. Do you have one or not ?

Okay, can you give me an example of one of their theories that have scientific grounds ?

I used the word "independent" because it's the best adjective I could find to describe the profile I wanted to talk about, but of course it's impossible to be completely independent of social norms etc, we're humans... If that makes it easier to understand my point, imagine a person who has access to everything but philosophy, and doesn't have a clue about their method, etc. Imagine they're trying to paint a picture of reality, they're going to have to use other resources, which could be by other disciplines (science, psychology,...) or their personal experience by exploring nature, cultures, talking to a lot of people,... Do you think their theories would be wiser than those from philosophy ?

And what you're trying to say is that science is more dependent of social norms etc than philosophy ? Because in that case I totally disagree, the fact that scientific theories keeps being test by experiments is, in my opinion, a more objective window to the world then the endless debates of philosophers which are based on other debates, which are based on other debates and on and on where no one really knows where a theory comes from except from pieces of logic and imagination.



Well philosophy of science mostly studies science itself, the aim isn't to come up with theories that have scientific grounds. And analytic philosophy uses a few concept of formal logic but it certainly doesn't try to gather data from science as grounds for their theories. At least not that I know of, if you know a branch of those which focuses on what I just explained, please tell me.

Nice ! So what kind of philosophy helped you with that self control ? Was that something you read or something you learned over time by yourself ?

You mentioned rationality, but to me, you could be rational without caring about philosophy at all.

What's a perfect definition anyway ? We assigned words to concepts and things we see and experience, and these words either represent a category of these or the elements themselves. So we can argue whether an object fits a category, or whether we should expand the category so that the object fits, but arguing if a definition is perfect ? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Linguistic isn't science, it's not meant to understand the world but to make categories of elements in the world so that we can communicate. And since that's the goal, why should we define every word with other words if everyone already understand the concept (eg the word "nothing"). You can teach a child the concept of nothing with toys, and then tell them "this is called nothing". It can't be thought with words, so why should we try to define it "rigorously" ?