Looking at other such "debates" from that angle, this match recurs, I'd say: Biblical literalists presumably imagine the Earth as more or less unchanging, except for the effects of The Flood and catastrophism of that ilk; science says it changes both globally (temperature-wise, first and foremost) and locally (plate tectonics, and so forth). Flat-Earthers imagine it at rest, under a celestial dome; science says it spins and wobbles its way along a multitude of superimposed orbits. Steady-Staters imagine the universe as homogeneous and isotropic in time as well as in space; science says Big Bang. — onomatomanic

This seems like a very simplistic characterization. It seems like you're trying to make a distinction - static vs. dynamic - which isn't 1) represented by your examples or 2) useful.

I think there is an interesting logical jump here which may require some scrutiny first. While in biology the result of the scientific method can be characterized as 'dynamic', the scientific method itself is actually not necessarily 'dynamic' at all. It can be considered very conservative, even 'static' in some aspects since it usually prefers to take the proven as basis, and always reaches into unproven with keeping the utmost respect to the 'proven

This is from the comment you provided from the science forum. I was thinking something similar - I don't know what you mean when you say that science is dynamic vs. static.

Philosophy and science form an inseparable whole. I don't know the word for that whole (naturalism?) but the both shape each other and to have a good understanding you need both. On their own they are empty talk. — Verdi

Ok..., but... Somebody else pulled them apart and we're left here to deal with it. Again, the hand we're playing. Also, nothing is an "inseparable whole." In a sense, metaphysics is the process by which we divide the original, primordial inseparable whole, the Tao perhaps, into apples, electrons, and mutual funds.

Beyond which, I think the distinction between metaphysics and science is a useful one. If I'm going to use knowledge to make decisions about actions in the real world, I have to have a good idea of how much I can trust that knowledge. In order to do that, I need to establish and enforce rules for information gathering and processing. That's one of the things epistemology is.

So, what would you people say is the most moral course of action in this situation? Where should she go? — Amalac

This is a thoughtful, generous, realistic, clear, moving, and deeply self-aware description of your situation. It allowed me to try to put myself in your place. In my mind, I substituted myself for you and my children for your sister and reran the tape. I have no advice for you or any moral opinion. I can only tell you what my heart tells me I would do, or rather, what I would not do. There is no way I could ever decide to cut one of my children out of my life. I could never tell myself it was not my problem. I would do something and continue to do something until something worked or until... All that is easy to say. Maybe I'm fooling myself. Who knows what I'd do if it actually happened.

I know - children are different than siblings. I have two brothers and one sister, all of whom I love. All of whom are 50 years old or older. What would I do? I'd like to think I'd feel the same as for my children except that it would be less intense. I'd be able to spread the responsibility out among the rest of my family.

Again, easier said (me) than done (you). This is not a moral question. It is a question for your heart.

One piece of advice - never take advice from someone you don't know on a philosophy forum.

Any philosophy, be it eastern or western, is the love for talking about the specific knowledge contained in a specific knowledge system, be it science, the knowledge of the eight-fold way, the knowledge of nature and gods in the universe in a magical outlook, the knowledge of astrology, homeopathic knowledge, etc. You get the picture. — Verdi

Then science, under the influence of the very idea that there is a difference between knowing and the talking about it, like the idea got hold that there is an independent reality about which things can only be known approximately, like Plato's realm of an independent realm of mathematics. The stuff known likewise separated from the subjective talk about it. — Verdi

The philosophy of science is the talking about scientific knowledge, and it is this scientific knowledge that western philosophy is talking about. But science is a large area, an philosophy is talking about political knowledge. Philosophy of the mind is talking about the knowledge of the mind. Philosophy of math, physics, the law, economy, theology, history, language, philosophy about any subject taught at the academia, being taught at a separate faculty. Western philosophy is philosophy of science. Showing love for scientific wisdom, as is the usually ascribed meaning. The subject matter being science.

In short, western philosophy is a Grreek invention to separate the knowledge from the talking about it. A separation being present in western thought only. — Verdi

You've addressed the issue by explaining why the issue doesn't really exist or isn't really important, which is a valid philosophical and rhetorical strategy. We know stuff and philosophy is just talking about the stuff we know. But we are playing the philosophy game here. Here on the forum we think philosophy exists and is important. We think it comes before knowledge, in a sense that it's more important than knowledge. More basic.

So I think you've got it backwards. First comes the world, then comes metaphysics, then comes knowledge. At least that's the hand we're playing here on the forum. That's the hand I'm playing.

In any case, both are required to do science as we now do it and philosophy too. — Manuel

I agree that subject/object duality is needed for science, but not necessarily for philosophy. I don't think this is the place to go into that any deeper.

Rights should only be accorded to beings to whom the concept is meaningful. But this is not to say that all beings should not be treated humanely. — Wayfarer

I think rights are primarily about the one who grants those rights rather than the beneficiary. When I say that someone or something has a right, I mean that I have made a commitment to treat them in a certain way. When they said "All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." they meant that they, the signers of the Declaration, made a commitment supported by a pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." That's what a right is, a declaration of commitment.

I'm not sure I understand. If you were to say the world is related to how we think about it, then that's fine. If we are thinking about ourselves the world is of secondary importance at best. — Manuel

I was getting a bit poetic, metaphoric, in my previous post. That can be confusing, but sometimes I can't help myself. I want to play.

As for your question - If I don't see my self as existing, that takes the support framework from around the world. Suddenly I don't know where I am. At what scale. Am I looking at galaxies or quarks? The whole subject/object distinction depends on me being at the heart of things.

I'd argue then when a scientific experiment reaches the theorum phase it is philosophy, for this and that together create 'it'(pronoun). — Varde

This distinction between scientific theorizing - the generalization of models and theories from scientific data - and philosophy has come up several times in this thread. I think they are different. Theorizing and model building are part of science, not philosophy. Maybe this sounds nitpicky, but I think it's important.

yes, perhaps I was too hasty, but nonetheless, a small edict on my point, a similar argument. — Varde

@Verdi

[joke]One of the two of you will have to change your name. It's hard to keep you straight. [/joke]

The philosophy of science is simple. Science tries to capture the natural world. By means of gaining knowledge about it. By examining the stuff that constitutes it. — Verdi

Most of what you write about the philosophy of science is about the goals of science. That's fine, but I don't think it's the most interesting or important part.

Once science and philosophy were not separated. Knowledge and talking about it were one and the same. In our time, I think philosophy should be more than just talking about science. — Verdi

You talk about the philosophy of science, but you don't really deal with the difference between that and science itself. This is one place you do:

And on and on. The philosophy of science includes the scientific methodology, which is just a quasi-scientific attempt to frame the whole scientific enterprise in the quasi-scientific language of The Methodology. As if the human enterprise, erratically, non-rationally, non-programmed, or even maybe randomly, evolves. Scientists try crazingly to stick to this method, but that's merely empty verbiage. — Verdi

I don't agree with this, especially the cynical tone. Epistemology, which the philosophy of science is part of, is not "quasi-scientific." It's pre-scientific, that's the point. Based on what you've written, it doesn't seem like you think the philosophy of science is very important.

Maybe a separate thread on the philosophy of science would be a good idea. In almost any discussion about science here on the forum, science and the philosophy of science end up being all tangled together as if they are the same thing. Which, importantly, they are not.

There's a time and a place to get more into the details of the umbrella terms that are "true" and "false" in the context of logic.... but I don't think it's worth wading into at this particular juncture. Another avenue for a good thread perhaps? — Artemis

Yes. We agree.

Ok. So what do you think that definitive delineation is? — Artemis

This is what I wrote in a post to @Tom Storm earlier in this thread:

You've brought up "presuppositions," which is Collingwood's term for the content of metaphysics. Actually, he says "absolute presuppositions." I've shied away from using his terms because I was afraid it would send us off in a direction different from where I wanted to head. I'm glad you did though and I have no problem with using them more if it will help.

I think the way you've described it is consistent with my understanding of how metaphysics works. I think you're example - "Reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described" - is a good example of an absolute presupposition. As for science, I've thought that it's metaphysical foundation is related to physicalism, realism, and materialism at least. I'm not sure the implications of applying any of those three, or something else, to science. — T Clark

As I noted, I was afraid to bring all this into this discussion because it deserves one of it's own. There have been many over the years, including one by me. I will start a "What is Metaphysics" thread. Unless you want to.

Well, to be honest, I didn't read the OP. Only the title. It asked about the difference between science and philosophy. I gave a direct answer: science is knowledge, philosophy is talking about it. — Verdi

I've been thinking about what I wrote since last night. I think I was wrong and I feel bad, especially since it was your first day. I guess it was that you were writing about philosophy of science instead of philosophy in general, but that's silly.

As I wrote earlier, your post is interesting and well written.

Once science and philosophy were not separated. Knowledge and talking about it were one and the same. In our time, I think philosophy should be more than just talking about science. — Verdi

Interesting and well written. Welcome to the forum.

Not to quibble, but I don't see how this is relevant to the subject of this thread, specified in the opening post (OP).

If you are interested in this issue, you might look into Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing." — James Riley

I was going to mention Stone's essay, but you beat me to it. It's a bit broader issue than @Shawn brought up. It deals with the rights of the environment as a whole rather than domesticated animals. I think the two issues are closely related.

Relevant to that, in the US, the federal government acts as a Natural Resources Trustee representing the interests of the environment. This program runs parallel to other federal and state environmental laws and regulations and sometimes involves requirements for mitigation or repair of environmental damage.

Is F=ma true? — Banno

I feel like you're setting me up for something, but I'll bite. "F = ma" is a scientific statement, and thus has a truth value. Yes, it is true.

Aren't the presuppositions of science (which go into making such a statement) comprised of metaphysical positions - e.g., that reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described? And wouldn't physicalism be the metaphysical foundation of science? — Tom Storm

You've brought up "presuppositions," which is Collingwood's term for the content of metaphysics. Actually, he says "absolute presuppositions." I've shied away from using his terms because I was afraid it would send us off in a direction different from where I wanted to head. I'm glad you did though and I have no problem with using them more if it will help.

I think the way you've described it is consistent with my understanding of how metaphysics works. I think you're example - "Reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described" - is a good example of an absolute presupposition. As for science, I've thought that it's metaphysical foundation is related to physicalism, realism, and materialism at least. I'm not sure the implications of applying any of those three, or something else, to science.

This is fun.

That's a tough one. That would be the case if the self "T Clark" is a metaphysical entity. — Manuel

Under some metaphysical schemes, my self is an illusion. I don't think that would make me a metaphysical entity, I think it would just mean I don't exist in that metaphysical universe. Click a switch, turn on a realist metaphysic, and T Clark, philosophical hero to the benighted masses flashes back into existence.

It seems to me that selves are epistemological entities related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world. — Manuel

Sorry, I'm going to be cute again - The world is related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world independent of us.

I had a bunch written up, but then I realized, we're more or less quibbling over semantics. You said before that a claim about a non-existent thing is meaningless, I say it's false. Tomayto, tomahto, because false simply means not true, and meaningless would mean not true as well. Same dif. — Artemis

I don't think it's that simple. "Not true" is not the same as "false." In this case, they live in different universes. I think this is an important issue, but I'm not sure I've been addressing it right in the past. I need to think about it some more.

But that leads us to what Banno and I were addressing earlier: where something veers into science versus philosophy versus literal and figurative belly-aching is more content-specific than anything else, and even there more overlap exists than one might initially assume. — Artemis

I don't agree with this. I see a relatively definitive delineation between metaphysical and scientific issues, statements, and questions. I call it "scientific" because that's the term we've been using, but it's more than that. It includes all of our regular daily interactions with the world.

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement.
— T Clark

It's a statement about the state or nature of an aspect of reality. — Artemis

By that standard "My tummy hurts." is a metaphysical statement.

The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.

Both are (as Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. — Artemis

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement.

Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things. — Artemis

"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement.

No. I think of interpretations of "QT" & "cosmological data" as theoretical, not just conceptual. — 180 Proof

I just wanted to check if you and I are in agreement. For me, making generalizations from observations and the results of experiments and creating theories and models is part of science and is not metaphysical. From what you wrote, I think you agree with that.

Never heard of one that actually disputes the cogito. — Artemis

I'm sure many people have questioned it. Here's an answer to the question "Is 'cogito ergo sum' true or false?" from Quora.

Nietzsche had an interesting counter-point to this idea. Namely, he asserted that it would be more correct to say "something thinks, therefore something exists." To assert that "you" exist, you have to presuppose the existence of a unified "you" (which means that you are already assuming "I am"), which is non-trivial. After all, are we so certain that the mind is a single, unified entity? If that is so, then how can the mind be at odds with itself (an experience that I am sure that most everyone is familiar with)? So, perhaps, we should view not as the mind being aware of its own thought, but as a two-body system, where one entity thinks, and another entity perceives this thought. (I seem to recall that fMRI suggested that first the brain has an insight, and only afterward does the forebrain become aware of this fact, but I am not a neurobiologist and am not qualified to assert such a thing.)

Personally, I am of the mind (no pun intended) that "cogito ergo sum" is an axiom. It is something that we assume to be true, mostly because if it is not true, then there is no possible discourse that we could have, and that doesn't seem particularly useful.

Here's a link:

https://www.quora.com/Is-cogito-ergo-sum-true-or-false?share=1

I think "cogito ergo sum" is more a definition of existence than a statement about it.

it's a truth claim. It's either true or false. — Artemis

If my self doesn't exist, if there is no "I," "I think, therefore I am," is not a "truth claim," it's meaningless.

Philosophy and science both make metaphysical claims. They differ in focus, but not in kind. — Artemis

Can you give a example of a scientific metaphysical claim.

The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. That was Descartes whole point. — Artemis

There are many philosophies and psychologies which do not recognize the existence of the self - me, myself, I.

The other is trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves (not as constructs, but as objectively existing observers) therein. — Artemis

Just because "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," is a useful way of "trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves," doesn't mean it's true.

Are the correspondence and coherence theories of truth both true? My answer - No, neither is true.

As far as I can discern them, the basic difference between philosophy and science is the latter concerns defeasible reasoning towards the best explanations / predictive models (cognitivity re: theorems, theories ~ propositions) whereas the former concerns reflective reasoning towards better, more probitive, questions / conceptual interpretations (noncognitivity re: ideas ~ suppositions). In other words, scientists strive to know nature (presence) and philosophers seek to understand reality (absence). — 180 Proof

I'm not sure if this is different from what I wrote or not. A question and a comment. 1) When you say "conceptual interpretations" do you mean like the various interpretations of quantum theory? Or maybe the big bang theory as an interpretation of the meaning of cosmological data collected by scientists? 2) In my experience, "nature" and "reality" are often used as synonyms.

In more common terms philosophy is more concerned with the validity of questions and science is more concerned with answering questions. — I like sushi

Is this different from what I said? Is it inconsistent with what I said?

I think, therefore I am. — Artemis

Is this true? Is it false? If it's true, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2" is true?

P.s. As for the coherence theory of truth... well, I give you the correspondence theory of truth:
The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world. (From the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia) — Artemis

I was using the statement about the coherence theory of truth to give an example of a statement about truth which is not true or false. It was not my intent to endorse a particular definition of truth. It works just as well for your correspondence theory:

Is "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," a true statement? If so, is it true in the same sense that "Paris is the capital of France" is true?

So, in what sense do you accept metaphysical claims. I have some idea of what that would look like — TheMadFool

This just feels like we're going around in circles.

Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say. — TheMadFool

Yes, I said that.

Scientific antirealism is the view that science should refrain from making metaphysical claims, it being possible that metaphysical claims are true or false. — TheMadFool

I don't understand. I just said that metaphysical statements are not true or false. This is why I thought you hadn't read the OP.

you reject metaphysical claims — TheMadFool

I do not reject metaphysical claims. This whole thread is based on me making a metaphysical claim.

scientific antirealism holds that truth is not what science is about. — TheMadFool

This is outside the scope of this discussion.

What's so different between saying "God exists" is neither true nor false and believing "God exists" isn't what's important? — TheMadFool

As I noted in the OP, "Religion is a bit ambiguous, since some think the existence of God is a matter of fact." For the purposes of this discussion, I don't have any further position on that matter. It's been argued many times on the forum. This is not the place to fight the battle again.

Oh cause you said morals deal with values not fact. So, I countered it with a response. — Caldwell

As I've said in several posts in this thread, my claim is that ethical questions don't have true or false answers, i.e. that ethical statements are not facts. I never said that ethical arguments don't involve facts. That would mean that ethics has no relation to the world we live in, which would be silly.

For one thing, Schopenhauer's argument for morals cites suffering as a condition of humanity. I'd say, he is using a fact that there is suffering. — Caldwell

There's a valid example. Now explain how it is relevant to my claim. As I've noted, I never claimed that ethics and morals didn't involve facts, only that ethical and moral statements, positions, are not facts. Those are completely different things. Let's lay this out:

Agreed - human life involves suffering. It's even one of the fundamental facts of Buddhism. Where does that lead? Does it follow that humans have a responsibility to help our fellows deal with suffering? Is "Humans have a responsibility to help our fellows deal with suffering" a true statement. If so, is it a true statement in the same sense as "1 + 1 = 2" is?

I made some mistakes in my recent response that might be confusing. They will probably show up in the link notifying you of a mention. Go directly to the post instead of following the link.

The values are vigorously argued, — Caldwell

Yes, true.

A valid argument is what's common among these disciplines. — Caldwell

Validity and truth are not the same thing. I didn't say, and I don't believe, that metaphysical questions aren't important and don't have value. In a sense, they are more important than facts, because we have a role in choosing the answer, even if we aren't aware we do.

They make use of facts to support their arguments. — Caldwell

I didn't say they didn't, and that isn't relevant to my claims. Or, maybe it is. Explain to me how.

You're espousing scientific antirealism - that science doesn't/shouldn't resort to making metaphysical claims which would be the case if scientists say that scientific theories are true i.e. for example a theory about quarks means that quarks actually exist. — TheMadFool

I don't think you read my OP very carefully.

Why is there a subdiscipline of philosophy where Metaphysics and Epistemology grouped together? — Shawn

Whatever the specific reason that the forum decided to do that, if you look up various definitions of "metaphysics," they include epistemology about half the time. I think it is generally understood that they are closely related. I go further myself. I think separating the study of the nature of things from the study of how we know the nature of things is wrong-headed. They are really the same thing.

Science gives true or false answers? I thought the pop wisdom was that scientific statements were never true, only probable. Or falsifiable. — Banno

This is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement.

I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic and Phil of Math (or Phil of any Science) from your list of philosophical subdisciplines. I'll stick to talking about Logic though, because I know it better than the others. — Artemis

To be clear, I excluded "Logic and Philosophy of Math" because 1) They seem different from the rest and 2) I really don't know what to say about them. As for Philosophy of Science, I didn't exclude it. Although I foresee some confusion fitting it into my scheme, I feel like I know enough to deal with it.

Logic is the foundation for the other subdisciplines. You can't do the others without knowing Logic. Even if you dislike Logic and think some of it is wrong or whatever, you have to use the rules of Logic to get anywhere analytically. — Artemis

There's a discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to dig in because 1) as I noted, I'm not good with logic and 2) I don't think the discussion we could have is specifically relevant to the issue I am trying to deal with.

The rest of philosophy deals with facts and truth in varying degrees. I think it would be more helpful to think of it less as "either/or" and more as "both/and." Philosophy deals with, for example, values AND truth claims. Metaphysics deals generally more with claims that either are or aren't true, and Ethics less so. — Artemis

I didn't say philosophy doesn't deal with facts and truth. I said philosophy does not deal with questions that have true or false answers. For example, from Wikipedia entry for Coherence Theory of Truth - "Truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole." This statement is about "truth," but, I claim at least, it is neither true nor false.

There's also the part that philosophy draws on data from the world to make claims. Ethics could, to some degree, make subject-less claims I suppose. ... But for the most part it's making value claims about the real world based on data that is either true or false. — Artemis

Ok, let's try this - "It's wrong to intentionally harm people." Is that statement true? If so, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2," is? I'm working this out for myself at the same time I'm sending it back to you.

"The correct answer to what is the capital of France is Paris"
The correct way to study cancer is using science."

'Correct' plays a different role in both of these ideas.

And they are provisional - If you are studying people's 'lived experience' of cancer, the answer might be different. — Tom Storm

If you are saying that, for some people, prayer might provide a better, or at least more humane, way to deal with their cancer than science, I agree. I was going to add an argument something like that, but I didn't want to deal with the issue with vague arm-waving. I should be able to address it head on.

Why this question? — Tom Storm

I think it's a good example of the kind of distinction I'm claiming is important. I didn't propose it as a way to argue against your point. I ran the thought experiment on myself at the same time I proposed it to you. I think it's an interesting question. I'm curious how other people will respond.

This is not intended as a criticism or animadversion, but what's the point of elevating utility if there isn't a demonstrable correct way to arrive there relative to the issue at hand? — Tom Storm

I'm not sure I understand your question. You and I agree that science is a better, more effective, way of searching for a cure for cancer than prayer. Does "better" mean "correct?" I'll reformulate that response in a way that is more difficult for my argument to handle - Is the statement "Science is a better way of finding a cure for cancer than prayer," true? That's really interesting. I'll think about it some more.