# Thoughts on the philosophy of science?



## aizen (May 10, 2013)

Is the philosophy of science applicable and useful to science itself? Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings? Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses? Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

The root of science is taking a guess (hypothesis) and then testing to see if that is right or not. I think it is a pretty good method, but sometimes people leave out the fact that it starts with a guess and take the hypothesis to be fact before it has been fully proven to be a fact.

As far as why they are at odds with each other, I think that fundamentally there are some things that are really not testable IE things that happened in the past. We can take a look back from a scientific point of view and say this is what most likely happened, but no one has built a time machine so it is pretty well impossible to take in every possible variable that could have caused differences in things. That's why you keep seeing science books revised over and over again stating different time tables, etc, they're really just taking a best guess. Scientists don't want to admit that though and are convinced based on the evidence they have, and philosophers are certain that they also have the right answer based on their evidence, so you get into an unwinnable match because neither party can prove they are correct and neither wants to admit there are other potential alternatives to their view.


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

> Is the philosophy of science applicable and useful to science itself?


Obviously it is quite effective. Tough it cannot help surpassing the problem of induction, the subjectivity of perception and the limits of experiments it apparently works. 



> Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings?


Than what?



> Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses?


A definite answer to this question excludes per defintion what it presupposes; An observer who might tell you what exists beyond the limits of our perception. 



> Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


I see no big gap between the two of them. They focus on similar question, though science is inclinded to specialize on certain topics. Basically science is rooted in philosophy. It needs a theory of science as a guideline, as well as subfields of philosophy, like logic for mathematics. 

Lately a certain science cult has emerged, based on the thought that science descibes "reality" adequately and that philosophy is drivel, devoid of substance. It worries me, that people abuse science for their ideology, but fortunately there are many critical minds out there as well.

@*bluekitdon * 


> The root of science is taking a guess (hypothesis) and then testing to see if that is right or not. I think it is a pretty good method, but sometimes people leave out the fact that it starts with a guess and take the hypothesis to be fact before it has been fully proven to be a fact.


What do you consider "fully proven" or a "fact"?


----------



## bluekitdon (Dec 19, 2012)

Orchidion said:


> What do you consider "fully proven" or a "fact"?


That's part of the question and where it gets tricky. Many things are considered facts by science based on the experiments done to verify the hypothesis. In general I consider most of those things very reliable as people have been able to repeat the experiment and reach the same results under controlled conditions. History shows us that some of those things have since been overturned when additional variables that the experiments failed to take into consideration were exposed, or when better measuring or observation tools are developed though.

In general I think the scientific method is probably the best we have at coming to a well tested solution for most things. Just saying the results are not infallible, and this is where we get ourselves into trouble by trying to say that there is no other possible answer when it would be nearly impossible to consider every possible variable on complex questions.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Maybe we can say that the mind is the 6th sense since it is the mind that (re-)creates images and is therefore an observing sense related to the physical outside ourselves just like all the other sense are entwined with the physical world
So can we say that we have touch, smell, sight, hearing, taste AND thought? And if so, what are its implications?


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

bluekitdon said:


> That's part of the question and where it gets tricky. Many things are considered facts by science based on the experiments done to verify the hypothesis. In general I consider most of those things very reliable as people have been able to repeat the experiment and reach the same results under controlled conditions. History shows us that some of those things have since been overturned when additional variables that the experiments failed to take into consideration were exposed, or when better measuring or observation tools are developed though.
> 
> In general I think the scientific method is probably the best we have at coming to a well tested solution for most things. Just saying the results are not infallible, and this is where we get ourselves into trouble by trying to say that there is no other possible answer when it would be nearly impossible to consider every possible variable on complex questions.


Verifications are always finite and provide no ultimate evidence. Of course when a theory has a myriad of empirical verifications we tend to acknowledge it as a fact, which seems quite reasonable. But the problem lies within the defintion of fact. 

Among the main criteria of a "fact" appear to be objectivity, which would mean that our description corresponds with the actual object, which again cannot be verified, due to the subjectivity of man´s perception. Likewise we should be able to conform the theory through experiments repeatedly, where we again face the problem of induction. Basically there is no sound reason to consider anything an actual "fact". 

But then again science works. We can revive the dead, heal the sick, purifiy the wells of life, enlighten the dark; in a way we gain godlike qualities from it. This happens as we treat certain knowledge as facts and build machines, etc based on the concepts we worked out. 

Anyway, the pragmatical pointview might not add any logical evidence for the theory of science and science itself, but it indicates that this is the best possible approach we have. Perhaps this is the main argument for me to support science, besides personal fascination for the subject.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Orchidion said:


> Verifications are always finite and provide no ultimate evidence. Of course when a theory has a myriad of empirical verifications we tend to acknowledge it as a fact, which seems quite reasonable. But the problem lies within the defintion of fact.
> 
> Among the main criteria of a "fact" appear to be objectivity, which would mean that our description corresponds with the actual object, which again cannot be verified, due to the subjectivity of man´s perception. Likewise we should be able to conform the theory through experiments repeatedly, where we again face the problem of induction. Basically there is no sound reason to consider anything an actual "fact".
> 
> But then again science works. We can revive the dead, heal the sick, purifiy the wells of life, enlighten the dark; in a way we gain godlike qualities from it. Anyway, the pragmatical pointview might not add any logical evidence for the theory of science and science itself, but it indicates that this is the best possible approach we have. Perhaps this is the main argument for me to support science, besides personal fascination for the subject.


I agree with the subjectivity of the objective. Still, there is a way to observe the observe in total objectivity. Most people can't do this, they can only give description of the object but then the object becomes subjective because it's the way we are conditioned imposed on the observed. When you give a description, you use words. When we use words, we are confined to thought and therefore memory. So is there a method to see what is beyond thought? Of course there is, some people call this meditation but no one really knows how to meditate anymore because their methods are confined to words as well. When there is method, then there is thought and there we are trapped again.

If I point at a random object, you would call it a tree but that is only the name of the object. You can tell me what colors it has, how many branches you counted and that it is important for strategic oxygen purposes but that is only the description of the object. Still you don't know what it is. If you want to know what it is, then you have to have a quiet mind, a mind that doesn't judge. Forget everything you know and start with nothing - inquire and observe with a mind that is completely empty. The tree didn't judge you after all so why would we judge the tree? Do you understand this completely? I think this should be the foundation of every question - starting with the acknowledgment we know nothing - a true understanding that we know nothing. Then true creativity can come into being.


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

All in Twilight said:


> I agree with the subjectivity of the objective. Still, there is a way to observe the observe in total objectivity. Most people can't do this, they can only give description of the object but then the object becomes subjective because it's the way we are conditioned imposed on the observed. When you give a description, you use words. When we use words, we are confined to thought and therefore memory. So is there a method to see what is beyond thought? Of course there is, some people call this meditation but no one really knows how to meditate anymore because their methods are confined to words as well. When there is method, then there is thought and there we are trapped again.
> 
> If I point at a random object, you would call it a tree but that is only the name of the object. You can tell me what colors it has, how many branches you counted and that it is important for strategic oxygen purposes but that is only the description of the object. Still you don't know what it is. If you want to know what it is, then you have to have a quiet mind, a mind that doesn't judge. Forget everything you know and start with nothing - inquire and observe with a mind that is completely empty. The tree didn't judge you after all so why would we judge the tree? Do you understand this completely? I think this should be the foundation of every question - starting with the acknowledgment we know nothing - a true understanding that we know nothing. Then true creativity can come into being.



1) Observing the "total objective" is a paradox. Observing requires a subject.
2) Words are neccesary to descibe the objects of our perception. Without language we couldn´t formulate what exactly appears to be going on. We would be incapable of gaining further knowledge without words. Why should meditation help in this case?
3) "Still you don´t know what it is" - Thus you are implying that the tree has an "essence", through which it is defined and which can be grasped through a "quiet mind" (Euphemism for vapidity?)
4) Without judgements we couldn´t state empirical data
5) We know absolutely nothing? Haven´t known that before.
6) What has this to do with creativity?

Frankly I cannot really see how this might help transcending the llimits of our consciousness, nor its subjective nature. If you care to elaborate, please do so. Make me understand what you mean.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

Orchidion said:


> 1) Observing the total objective is a paradox. Observing requires a subject.
> 2) Words are neccesary to descibe the objects of our perception. Without language we couldn´t formulate what exactly appears to be going on. We would be incapable of gaining further knowledge without words. Why should meditation help in this case?
> 3) "Still you don´t know what it is" - Thus you are implying that the tree has an "essence", through which it is defined and which can be grasped through a "quiet mind" (Euphemism for vapidity?)
> 4) Without judgements we couldn´t state empirical data
> ...


We are the subject of course. So there is the subject and the object. That is why we have invented time after all for a reason I still don't understand. Please, give it some thought. Reading it without thinking about it is not going to get you anywhere. So please let go of your prejudices, likes and dislikes, agree and disagree and your conditioning and cultivation and think about what I have said for a few days. So question everything you know but also of course the things I am stating 

You're trying to seek truth verbally but there is no truth to be found in words. You think it is because that is the way you have been conditioned. Of course a tree has an essence but most people are blind. Blinded by emotions, their cultivation, traditions, their education, their parents etc. etc. Can you think outside all those boxes? Nope, you can't. You have, and this is not an insult but a fact so don't feel offended please, a dull and mechanical mind. You can only repeat the known and the known is limited. Do you understand this?

Empirical data for what? What is it you're looking for? Don't you understand that thought is limited because it is based on memory and memory is limited? Everything you think already existed in one form or another so basing truth on this would be a limited truth. And therefore science is limited. Everything you see was once nothing more but a thought. Everything we know and see is nothing more than the accumulation of consciousness the whole of humanity. Except nature. Nature hasn't been invented by us. Still we have to give nature a name or else the mind becomes insecure. 

So thinking is related to memory, it's putting your hand in the box of consciousness and juggle with the content but it's still repeating what other people have said in one form or another. Try inventing something that is not in any way related to the known. That is true creativity. So how can we transcend the limits of our consciousness? I already explained this but you didn't want to go there. Then don't. It's fine with me.

Do you follow? You seem like an intelligent person but you are too conditioned to grasp this right now. But think about it and question everything and I mean everything. No one can lead you to truth, only you can.


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

@All in Twilight

What you state differs from my paradigma quite a bit, hence difficulites understanding it are of course included. Still I remain dissatisfied with much you write as you 1) often made assertions, but did not bother to provide explanations (e.g. invention of time) or 2) did not elaborate points and provided examples previously made so it becomes comprehensible for a person with a differrent world view. Anyway I´ll criticise what you stated and in return you might be able to give answers insightful about your personality. 



> We are the subject of course. So there is the subject and the object. That is why we have invented time after all for a reason I still don't understand. Please, give it some thought. Reading it without thinking about it is not going to get you anywhere. So please let go of your prejudices, likes and dislikes, agree and disagree and your conditioning and cultivation and think about what I have said for a few days. So question everything you know but also of course the things I am stating


We did invent time? Is this an attempt on reviving the transcendental-philosophical time notion? Denying time as existing beyond our consciousness (as well) includes many paradoxes when comtemplating perception. 

Please point out which segments of my world view appear to be biased. And don´t worry, I don´t feel offended easily.



> You're trying to seek truth verbally but there is no truth to be found in words. You think it is because that is the way you have been conditioned. Of course a tree has an essence but most people are blind. Blinded by emotions, their cultivation, traditions, their education, their parents etc. etc. Can you think outside all those boxes? Nope, you can't. You have, and this is not an insult but a fact so don't feel offended please, a dull and mechanical mind. You can only repeat the known and the known is limited. Do you understand this?


Truth exists merely in language. When you state :"the chair is truth", you will make a meaningless assertion. Truth is but the assessment of a statement, no quality of objects. If you say :" The chair is red", you will speak the truth if the chair you refered possesses the quality you call "red". Truth exists merely within the borders of our consciousness. Apparently you are a follower of essentialism as you consider truth to be an enitity and assert that things have firm essences. Frankly when defining truth and essence this appears to be drivel for me, but I am open for different paradigmas and would enjoy hearing about yours.



> Empirical data for what? What is it you're looking for? Don't you understand that thought is limited because it is based on memory and memory is limited? Everything you think already existed in one form or another so basing truth on this would be a limited truth. And therefore science is limited. *Everything you see was once nothing more but a thought*. Everything we know and see is nothing more than the *accumulation of consciousness*. Except nature. Nature hasn't been invented by us. Still we have to give nature a name or else the mind becomes insecure.


1) Thoughts are based on memory? And what are memories based on? Empirical data, the objects of our perception.
2) Of course thoughts, language and science are limited.
3) You appear to be an epistemological idealist. Again I am incapable of accepting such idealism due to its onesidedness.



> So thinking is related to memory, it's putting your hand in the box of consciousness and juggle with the content but it's still repeating what other people have said in one form or another. Try inventing something that is not in any way related to the known. That is true creativity. So how can we transcend the limits of our consciousness? I already explained this but you didn't want to go there. Then don't. It's fine with me.


I don´t know what you consider new, but apparently you exxagerate when you state, that by thinking there is absolutely no way to create something new. Of course the basic material of thoughts, the words, remain the same and are based on past experiences. This does not mean, that they are creativally impotent. Inventing something fundamentally new is certainly impossible. 

I have no idea how you imagine coming to the "true creativity". It appears to be an artificially made up term for a poorly defined notion.



> Do you follow? You seem like an intelligent person but you are too conditioned to grasp this right now. But think about it and question everything and I mean everything. No one can lead you to truth, only you can.


I am not perfectly sure if I grasp your world view. Perhaps a short overview of your paradigma is insightful.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

@Orchidion

I understand. I have skipped a few steps in the process but I didn't want to derail the thread too much and maybe the mods think that I am trolling. Thanks for not considering my words as insult. I have better things to do with my life and I don't step on people just for the sake of stepping on them.

Time comes into being when there is a subject and an object or two objects. We always need an object to have time. If we would be wandering around in an endless space, there would be no time. And also, there would be no space  This is nothing new. 

Saying the chair is red is judgment. And we are relying on what other people have said. We are conditioned to believe the chair is red. That is not empirical objective data, that is repeating what other people have said before us (and becomes therefore subjective already)→ Memory. And we all repeat what other people have said which leads to mechanical thinking. In this case the memory of another person that we consider now to be true. But what is it? What is it really? I can see beyond those things and I am not a crazy person xD But every form of judgment (even naming things is judgment so judging works in a very subtle way) makes the object of perception a subjective object. In this case there will always be a gap between the observer and the observed. If you can close that gap, then time has a different meaning as well. It's beyond the 3rd dimension.


About condition in a more simplified form: If we would have said a few hundred years ago that your chair is full of movements although it feels solid, they have would burned you. Now science confirmed that indeed the chair is full of movement: atoms. But we can't see those pesky little things with the naked eye. But can we even go beyond this? Of course we can, so many philosophers have written about this. Think of Buddha, Plato, Christ Jesus, (forget about what the pope or your local priest is telling you, they a fear mongering fools who need security in the form of some afterlife they have no grasp of and want you to believe in a god they don't know) Lao Tzu, Dante Alighieri etc. Therefore it is important not to become conditioned because it is a limitation. Always inquire with nothing. This also brings about a great form of humility and there are no emotions and therefore prejudices involved.

I am not an idealist. Idealistic emotional nonsense means nothing to me. Forget about that. I will stop for now and let you think about the way we have been conditioned for many milennia and how it affected our way of thinking.


----------



## Orchidion (Jan 3, 2013)

> Time comes into being when there is a subject and an object or two objects. We always need an object to have time. If we would be wandering around in an endless space, there would be no time. And also, there would be no space  This is nothing new.


The term "invented" lead me to the belief, that you meant something different. Still I cannot concur. Anyway we shoulnd´t go way to OT.



> Saying the chair is red is judgment. And we are relying on what other people have said. We are conditioned to believe the chair is red. That is not empirical objective data, that is repeating what other people have said before us (and becomes therefore subjective already)→ Memory. And we all repeat what other people have said which leads to mechanical thinking. In this case the memory of another person that we consider now to be true. But what is it? What is it really? I can see beyond those things and I am not a crazy person xD But every form of judgment (even naming things is judgment so judging works in a very subtle way) makes the object of perception a subjective object. In this case there will always be a gap between the observer and the observed. If you can close that gap, then time has a different meaning as well. It's beyond the 3rd dimension.


Why should I rely on anything you are telling me?
Why do you think you are capable of transcendence? What have you experienced?

And I won´t continue debating about truth, judgement, thought. We have fundamentally different definitions of these matters. It´s futile to go on debating about this under such conditions.



> About condition in a more simplified form: If we would have said a few hundred years ago that your chair is full of movements although it feels solid, they have would burned you. Now science confirmed that indeed the chair is full of movement: atoms. But we can't see those pesky little things with the naked eye. But can we even go beyond this? Of course we can, so many philosophers have written about this. Think of Buddha, Plato, Christ Jesus, (forget about what the pope or your local priest is telling you, they a fear mongering fools who need security in the form of some afterlife they have no grasp of and want you to believe in a god they don't know) Lao Tzu, Dante Alighieri etc. Therefore it is important not to become conditioned because it is a limitation. Always inquire with nothing. This also brings about a great form of humility and there are no emotions and therefore prejudices involved.


Of course every time has a certain paradigma, which is deemed true. Your reference to famous philosophers to support appears like an authority argument. Is it possible to not be "conditioned" at all?



> I am not an idealist. Idealistic emotional nonsense means nothing to me. Forget about that. I will stop for now and let you think about the way we have been conditioned for many milennia and how it affected our way of thinking.


I was refering to the epistemological idealism, which states (more or less) that everything is "consciousness" or "mind" or "thoughts" or is merely existing within a mind.

And again: Why should I be conditioned by you?


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

@_Orchidion_

You shouldn't rely on me. I can't be your authority because then you wouldn't free. So we should inquire together and not me trying to condition you. But forget about this, I don't care about status, recognition, power over others and all the rest of it anyway. So question me all you want. 

Then yes, everything you see that has been made by humans is consciousness but I prefer to use the word "thought". People aren't conscious at all. People do tend to think a lot though. 

Now if I look at this world, I foresee a future that doesn't look too good. There are wars, there is suffering, there are dictators capable of destroying the world, there are the racial problems, the economical problems, the religious problems and the sexual problems and so on and science never added anything to solving conflict. It only made it worse. This is not some emotional nonsense, this is fact, just turn on your television. And we all created this through thought and we are all responsible for this. We invented this society. We think and those thoughts became physical. We invented the political systems, the religious organizations, the nations, the racial judgments etc. Now if I look at the world, then we can see that there is something terribly wrong with the way we think. Of course you will say now that there are also good things to be found but that is partial. I do not accept partial truths or partial solutions nor temporary solutions. 

So science wasn't able to solve conflict. Any form of conflict - conflict inwardly and outwardly. Can philosophy solve this problem? We humans are living in conflict for many thousands of year and we still haven't found a solution so let us not overestimate ourselves.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

aizen said:


> Is the philosophy of science applicable and useful to science itself?


Hmmmm, I would say aspects are, such as the concept of falsifiability (how one determines "truth").
I would say the philosophy of science is concerned with what a science is, the limitations of science, the goals of science and what role does it play, the fallibility of science (such as the sociology of the scientific community), ....

I would say that the philosophy of science helps to create the institution of science ... I mean helped create its guiding principles.

Whether current thoughts on the philosophy of science can still help science itself? I don't know ... but the philosophy of science can help us with determining what role science should play and make us aware of the limitations and potential biases.




> Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings?


If it is testable, then I would say that science can test it ... for the most part, this sounds like the domain of science ... although value judgements may be the domain of philosophy .... For things that can't be experimentally verified, well philosophy may be able to fill the gaps ... I think it is important to note that there are scientists who have contributed thoughts to the philosophy of science. 



> Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses?


Hunger :tongue: (isn't that a different sense)

Well, I would say yes ... I don't think we can sense certain elementary particles without specialized equipment that converts that interaction into something we can see (i.e. numbers on a screen lol) ... some elementary particles may not interact with us at all, except for gravity ... but such gravity is so small (that is beyond what our senses can measure) .... What about light outside of the visible spectrum lol
Or, something more abstract. Can one sense the thoughts of others? (perhaps it our science is sufficiently advanced our technology might, assuming it is possible beyond the simple thoughts of telling a screen cursor to move up or down lol)

Also if there are things that are completely unmeasurable and can not interact with anything we interact with (either directly or indirectly), then asking if such a thing exists would be asking a question that no one could possibly answer other than something like "I don't know"



> Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


No, I just think many scientists no longer find it useful, even though science's foundation has a big philosophical background


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

There is no "philosophy of science" and if you think there is, I defy you to provide scientific evidence. Science merely collects and collates data like some sort of super office drone. Each branch of the sciences develops their own philosophy which changes over the years as they find faster and more accurate ways of collecting and collating data in that particular branch. There have even been studies done indicating scientists often don't even follow the supposed philosophy their branch uses because it merely forces them to jump through unnecessary hoops.


----------



## ShieraHol (Sep 17, 2013)

Science is supposed to follow where the evidence leads.
Philosophy basically gets to play 'what if' in a logical sequence.

Asking 'what if' about science may lead to new ways of learning or finding evidence and therefore could be useful.

I don't think they try to antagonize each other, but they don't mix well since they are playing by different rules.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

According to Feynman,_ "Science is the beliefin the ignorance of experts and Western civilization stands by two great heritages.One is the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, anunknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; *the demand that the unanswerable mysteries ofthe universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; tosummarize it — the humility of the intellect."*_


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Admittedly one thing that's often wrong in the scientific method is this: Experimentation isn't always a requirement. 

In some cases all you have to do is collect enough information to validate or refute your point. In some cases in fact it's impossible to control every variable, or unethical to conduct the experiment


To determine if black people die faster from HIV it would not be ethical to infect a whole bunch of black and white people with HIV and see how they get sick and die; and who kicks off first
Instead you would look at the rates at which people die from HIV, black & white for a given degree of physical condition (i.e. drug addicts shouldn't be compared with athletes)

And I know it sounds racist, but I'm just trying to point out something absurdly obvious.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

There is no conflict between science and philosophy. Throughout history, the great scientists have also been great philosophers. Now we have soulless specialists who are about as deep as a puddle.

Without philosophy, it's just random facts thrown together. It takes philosophy to argue about something like geometry for example. Geometry is mathematical, but only through philosophy do we realize that geometry has its limits as a human invention, and reflect on the limitations of our theories. Only through philosophy could Einstein realize his science, for example. To Einstein and others, "space" was as much a philosophical problem as a physical one. And this furthered the debate. It was good for it.

No new discoveries can happen with simply facts and math, it takes philosophy. Only for the soulless lab rat is philosophy not important.


----------



## DlusionAl (Apr 9, 2011)

aizen said:


> Is the philosophy of science applicable and useful to science itself? Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings? Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses? Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


-Well its useful in the sense that with philosophy you begin to question and think past current limitations, then with science you start to prove those thoughts. Sort of like you wont start something without philosophy but you cant finish it without science, generally speaking.

-Science

-Well there are way more than 5 senses so I guess ill skip this one
HowStuffWorks "How many senses does a human being have?"

-Well they very different but both want to explain the same things, so of course that will lead to clashing.


----------



## Madam (Apr 1, 2012)

aizen said:


> Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings?


Philosophy simply doesn't care about the vast majority of such questions, as nuclear fusion, workings of photosynthesis, causes of baldness and so on. All this dull and dirty work of figuring out the universe and everything in it belongs to science.



> Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


Mostly it's just ignorance of the perceiver, because there is no such a huge divide and especially not a divide that makes both seem antagonistic. Even though there is no divide between disciplines, there is one between the scientists and philosophers. Scientists often denounce philosophy, but then again - majority of them don't need it as majority of research is very mechanical, doesn't require lots of intelligence and can be carried out by a trained monkey. Whereas great scientists as Einstein, the leading theorists of quantum mechanics emphasized the importance of philosophy in science; chances are they were onto something. Whereas philosophers often get frustrated with the scientism, dogmatism and ignorance of many scientists. And stuff.

Is philosophy of science applicable and useful - obviously.


----------



## Protagoras (Sep 12, 2010)

aizen said:


> Is the philosophy of science applicable and useful to science itself?


That greatly depends on both the science one is discussing and the philosophy of science that is applicable to it. 'Science' is not uniformal, it is a name for many disciplines, methods, ways of approaching the natural world, etc. that only share a vague family resemblance to one another; just as 'philosophy' encompasses many different ways of thinking, approaches to subjects, etc. 

Really, it is strange that people think this sort of question you are asking can be answered in general terms, since there are too much relevant issues left out when you try to answer this question out of context. This is also the reason that it is kind of ridiculous that people speak about '_the_ scientific method' as if there is but one scientific method and as if there are not many scientific methods correspoding to very different sciences.



aizen said:


> Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings?


That also GREATLY depends on what question you are asking.



aizen said:


> Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses?


Depends on what you mean by 'observable'. Directly or indirectly observable, for example? Nonetheless, I would say that there are things that are not observable by our senses, such as consciousness itself. I do not hear, see, taste, touch or smell conscioussness, and yet I could not make sense of anything if there were no consciousness.



aizen said:


> Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


There is no such divide to the intelligent mind.


----------



## ApostateAbe (Aug 8, 2013)

aizen said:


> Is the philosophy of science applicable and useful to science itself? Is philosophy or science better suited to answering questions about the nature of our universe, planet, and human beings? Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses? Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?


I have a different theoretical framework. I don't think of philosophy and science as being on opposing sides. There are a lot of unreasonable and untrue *philosophies* (plural) that are discounted by science, but that doesn't mean that science is moving in to philosophy's territory and pushing out philosophy. Philosophy is an integral part of science, or else we could not arrive at broad theoretical truths. All we would have is a large set of raw facts. Philosophy is ways of reasoning, with or without the facts. In science, they don't call it "philosophy," but they call it "method" or "methodology." It is philosophy all the same, a.k.a. epistemology. Scientists who agree on the facts may arrive at starkly different conclusions due to different philosophies. Some philosophies are more sound, some less.

_"Would you say that there are things that are unobservable by the five senses?"_

Yes, that is plainly true, following from scientific facts and inference. Dark matter is an example. A plainer example is electromagnetic fields with frequencies outside the visible spectrum. We know of these things because of instruments that can detect these things and because of indications left on the directly observable environment. Without such facts, then we have only speculations, and no sort of philosophy would justify strong belief in them.

_"Lastly why do you think there is a huge divide between philosophy and science to the point of seeming antagonistic towards each other?"_

Scientists are antagonistic toward philosophy, perhaps because they think philosophers peddle a lot of nonsense, but I don't see philosophers being antagonistic toward science.


----------

