# Has Science replaced Philosophy?



## morpheusx66 (Sep 3, 2013)

Stephen Hawking claimed science replaced the need for philosophical debate yet isn't the entire scientific method dependent upon an epistemological faith that our senses aren't deceiving us (rejection of Solipsism). What I'm trying to say is, science is a branch of philosophy.


----------



## Mathdino (Apr 14, 2013)

Solipsism's nice to think about, but in the end, (correct me if I'm wrong) does anyone really fully agree with it AND apply it to their lives? I mean think of it like Pascal's Wager: If what you sense is real and you recognise that, that's great, live your life. If what you sense isn't real and you didn't believe in your senses anyway... umm... you were right? Congratulations. If nothing's real and you did believe in your senses, you can carry on the illusion and it really won't affect you in the end. If what you sense is real, and you think it's all fake... you poor miserable sod.

Basically, if your truth seeking expands itself to an extent that everything's meaningless, maybe you need to narrow down the truth seeking, if only to maintain some sort of meaning. And nowadays science is the fashionable method of going about said truth seeking.

You're right though, that science predicates itself on certain philosophical assumptions, but I mean, philosophy's lovely to ponder about and discuss, but there's this thing called the real world we live in that kind of requires some assumptions to even function properly in it.


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

Philosophy is the main root of science. Historically, the latter has arised from philosophical investigations, i. e. mankinds need to further knowledge. Science is in a way just a methodical philosophy of nature. Saying that we can discard philosophy now is ludicrious in multiple ways. Science is founded on epistemological and metaphysical principles, a philosophy of science, which shape the entire methodology. This principles are not ultimate. Through progress, for instance via the introduction of modern physics, science went through paradigm shifts. Philosophical debates helped solving these. Anyway, why should we quit philosophy? It is a primal expression of our intellect, a manifestation of our innate curiousity. It is mere narrow-mindedness and hybris to declare the death of philosophy. Science is capable of examining the state of nature, but its scope is ultimately narrowed down to this. Politics rely on ethics, Mathematics on logic, science itself on epistemelogy, metaphysics and ontology.


----------



## Bahburah (Jul 25, 2013)

Thats very ignorant of him to say. 
Thats to say that what we know (or rather create) of science right now must be all there is to know and ever will be. 

For all we know science can maybe only take us so far before it's time to take a new approach to understand our environment. 

Its like a neanderthal thinking the only way to the moon is to build a big ladder.

I do see what he is saying, but I think that it just takes things farther away from the bigger picture.


And no philosophy isn't really apart of science because philosophy asks questions and imposes self interpretation as in science its more about setting up experiments with expected results and then recording exactly what happens (expected results or not) as fact. 
(if it can be reproduced with the same results every time its done) 
Thats why everything is called a theory in the scientific world, because they can't prove that the same results will happen every time. 

The closest theory to fact is Albert Einstein's theory of relativity which is kind of ironic when you think the scientific method. lol

But even that theory was recently questioned, but it was because of a miscalculation and so it's still the closest thing to actual fact we have. 

The theory of relativity is all science can really boast right now... And thats how sophisticated our science actually is.


----------



## seiei (Jul 21, 2013)

When Hawkings said that quote what he meant is that humans have come so far in their understanding, that philosophy is no longer able to further that knowledge. Philosophy for example, cannot discover black holes, dark matter, and whatever other secrets are out there. Science has taken the torch and is now carrying it. Does philosophy still exist and do people still practice it? Yes. Does science have its roots in philosophy? Yes. 

But philosophy is not science, and science is not philosophy, the nuances create major differences, one sits in an arm chair, one goes outside and begins observing and testing things. In general science has taken us much further than philosophy, and will continue to take us further. So in that regard I agree with Hawkings.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

seiei said:


> When Hawkings said that quote what he meant is that humans have come so far in their understanding, that philosophy is no longer able to further that knowledge. Philosophy for example, cannot discover black holes, dark matter, and whatever other secrets are out there. Science has taken the torch and is now carrying it. Does philosophy still exist and do people still practice it? Yes. Does science have its roots in philosophy? Yes.
> 
> But philosophy is not science, and science is not philosophy, the nuances create major differences, one sits in an arm chair, one goes outside and begins observing and testing things. In general science has taken us much further than philosophy, and will continue to take us further. So in that regard I agree with Hawkings.


That's funny because Hawking never leaves his chair and neither do many theoretical physicists. Wherever there is knowledge, philosophy will help nurture it. 

Again, science without philosophy is simply fact gathering. These facts must be incorporated into conceptual frameworks to maximize their use and understanding. If science wasn't philosophy, then anything could be science. 

Philosophy reminds us that all of Hawkings theories are nothing more than abstractions based on human sensory experience, and not "ultimate truths". Hawking feels threatened by that, and doesn't want people to be reminded of that. Philosophy is a critic of all methodologies of knowledge, including science. Philosophy makes fewer assumptions about the world than science. Science operates on assumptions, mainly materialism and human comprehension, and goes from there.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

Scientific theory that has been validated over and over = Law:
Law of mass action
Law of gravity
(not law like lawyers).
And, if science takes over philosophy-so be it. May the victor reap the spoils. Philosophy can only take us so far. It won't build a bridge, feed people, or clothe us.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

morpheusx66 said:


> Stephen Hawking claimed science replaced the need for philosophical debate yet isn't the entire scientific method dependent upon an epistemological faith that our senses aren't deceiving us (rejection of Solipsism). What I'm trying to say is, science is a branch of philosophy.


It's why science was originally called "natural philosophy".
Three sources would be good starting points (tho' they are advanced).

1) The Lost Tools of Learning by Dorothy L. Sayers (early female graduate of Oxford in 1915)
The Lost Tools of Learning

2) Galileo's Daughter by Dava Sobel (learning changed from "why?" (ultimate purpose) to "why?" (cause and effect) at the same time that people changed from scholasticism (learning at the feet of the masters) to empiricism (try it for yourself); this was done in conjunction with increasing technology and standardization, mostly in the interest of trade and transport.

3) The Discarded Image by C.S. Lewis (prof of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Oxford, then Cambridge) -- looks at pre-Copernican cosmology; a great introduction to the "flavor" of a time when science was not merely naturalistic empricism.


----------



## Off The Hitch (Nov 9, 2012)

Even if we do agree with Hawking for the sake of argument, I still don't see how philosophy is dead. 

Not to mention a bunch of people here are getting the context of the quote wrong. He isn't referring to ALL philosophy, he is referring to metaphysics specifically (which has been the avenue for natural philosophers to theorize until today, where we have great capacity to observe and record actual data).

We have bioethics, ethics in general, political philosophy, aesthetics, logic, philosophy of science (funnily enough) etc. etc. etc. 

Can't see science replacing philosophy.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Science hasn't replaced philosophy.

The media and educational system of most developed countries puts a much stronger emphasis on scientific development because technological progress serves the interests of capitalists more than philosophical criticism.


----------

