science as a religion

[Jeremy Taylor]

I'm sorry, but you could not be more wrong. Scientists rely on mathematics and vice versa constantly. Again, I point to the fact that the most well known scientists were theoretical physicists.

When did I ever say anything to the contrary? They rely on logic too, and, although it is not recognised enough, other areas of philosophy. But this does not mean that mathematics or logic or philosophy of nature are scientific in themselves. It simply means that they are used by scientists.

Theoretical physics is heavily based on mathematics, but it isn't mathematics. Hilbert is not Einstein and vice versa. They are different disciplines with different fields of study.

There have been arguments that mathematics can be reduced to an empirical science, as natural science is, but they are all hugely controversial and, to me, dubious.

Anyway, at the heart of this discussion is surely that our understanding of reality cannot exclude rational, analytical inquiry, rather than purely empirical, experimental investigation. That is what the believer in scientism and empiricism tends to wish to exclude.

 

[gnostic]

Science, or natural science, is generally considered to be about the quantifiable and measurable empirical world. Maths and certainly logic are generally outside science. That is why it is generally referred to as Maths and Science, and logic is a part of philosophy departments.

Science is not philosophy.

You are correct that science needs to quantifiable or measurable, because that the mean of acquiring knowledge, and testing if that knowledge is true or false. And yes, science does use maths and logic, some with greater degrees than other fields.

Science is a methodology of acquiring knowledge.

That's how science differ from philosophy, the mean of testing any statement. The hypothesis is tested, and if the test succeed "quantifiably", then it is possible that the hypothesis will eventually become a scientific theory. But if the hypothesis failed in repeated tests or there are lack of evidences to support the hypothesis, then that hypothesis has been refuted, and should discarded.

No hypotheses and theories in science are immutable. Any one of them can discarded if the evidences don't support the them, perhaps because there are better alternative (explanations or predictions, or both) to replace existing theories or hypotheses.

Philosophy is different in that certain people will accept this or that philosophy, regardless if it is false or wrong, or if there are better alternative. Philosophy don't require methodology of empirically testing. Philosophy is based on logic alone.

That's how science differ from philosophy.

And you are wrong. Yes, science can use logic and maths, but it can also rely on logic and maths alone, without evidences. These fields or branches of science is called theoretical physics.

Theoretical physics don't rely on evidences that can be verified or tested. What can be tested in theoretical physics is the mathematical models or equations. Many areas in theoretical physics are untestable, but it is "provable" through mathematical equations.

Among scientists and mathematicians, science relies on "evidences" for verification, but mathematics relies on "proofs", and proof means mathematical equations or mathematical models, or logic. However, theoretical physics does rely more on proofs than evidences.

But in the real world, I would rather rely more on science than on mathematics alone, because that's the engineering and technological side of me.

So, for you to say that maths and logic are "outside of science", you are wrong when you are ignoring theoretical physics.

Also, I have less patience with philosophy and because it has very little real-world application and not often practical than science.

I am qualified civil engineer and computer scientist/programmer, so for me I preferred my science and maths to be applicable, practical, usable. Philosophy is useless to me.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

You ignore my point about science using mathematics and logic. I never denied this. What I said was that mathematics and logic are not science in themselves, in the sense that disciplines of mathematics and logic are not scientific disciplines. Theoretical physics, in some areas, may have to rely on vast mathematical and logical extrapolations from what is currently testable. But physics is based on studying the empirical world. Mathematics isn't necessarily so. Maths is, to use an older but good definition, essentially about understanding quantity and patterns in themselves. Ideally, in physics testability is looked for. This is why scientists are always enthusiastic to finally test what has long been theoretically posited. This isn't usually the case in maths. You don't hope to empirically test Cantor's transfinite, for example. Of course, theoretical physics makes great use of mathematics, but the two disciplines are different, hence the different names.

As I said, and you overlooked, Einstein was not Hilbert, and vice versa.

 

[outhouse]

Also, I have less patience with philosophy and because it has very little real-world application and not often practical than science.

Im finding anyone who has even taken a class on it, is almost impossible to communicate with.

Keeping these people in context is more then a challenge.

 

[Ouroboros]

Im finding anyone who has even taken a class on it, is almost impossible to communicate with.

... Now I understand why you and I have a hard time talking. I've taken a few philosophy classes.

Keeping these people in context is more then a challenge.

LOL! Philosophers probably think it's the other way around.

 

[leibowde84]

When did I ever say anything to the contrary? They rely on logic too, and, although it is not recognised enough, other areas of philosophy. But this does not mean that mathematics or logic or philosophy of nature are scientific in themselves. It simply means that they are used by scientists.

Theoretical physics is heavily based on mathematics, but it isn't mathematics. Hilbert is not Einstein and vice versa. They are different disciplines with different fields of study.

There have been arguments that mathematics can be reduced to an empirical science, as natural science is, but they are all hugely controversial and, to me, dubious.

Anyway, at the heart of this discussion is surely that our understanding of reality cannot exclude rational, analytical inquiry, rather than purely empirical, experimental investigation. That is what the believer in scientism and empiricism tends to wish to exclude.

We aren't talking about "scientism", we are talking about science. And, certainly, rational/analytical inquiry is an important PART OF SCIENCE (or the scientific method more specifically). I've never heard any notable scientist that claimed it wasn't. I'm not even sure where you are getting the notion that anyone thinks it not part of science and the scientific method. Without rational/analytical inquiry, there would be no way to interpret the results from experimentation to make predictions about the future. Why would you contend that this practice is not part of science? Imho, science doesn't exist without it.

 

[outhouse]

... Now I understand why you and I have a hard time talking.

Funny never had a single issues in years with you until you posted biased apologetic creationist rhetoric to promote a made up creationist word.

The article was made up specifically to combat implicit atheism, because they did not like babies being atheist. They even admitted to such.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

We aren't talking about "scientism", we are talking about science. And, certainly, rational/analytical inquiry is an important PART OF SCIENCE (or the scientific method more specifically). I've never heard any notable scientist that claimed it wasn't. I'm not even sure where you are getting the notion that anyone thinks it not part of science and the scientific method. Without rational/analytical inquiry, there would be no way to interpret the results from experimentation to make predictions about the future. Why would you contend that this practice is not part of science? Imho, science doesn't exist without it.

I agree, though the people who often like to babble about the hypostasis of science often don't acknowledge this, though most aren't actually scientists.. But you are, again, confusing using the use of rational analysis - mathematical, logic, and philosophy - by science with these disciplines being scientific. Just because science makes use of maths and logic, it does not mean logic and maths are scientific disciplines.

Of course, the reason I was talking about scientism was because there is some fluidity in the definition of science. There are people who would try to expand science to include logic, mathematics, and even a subordinated philosophy. My point was that they can't achieve a proper victory for scientism by doing this - they haven't subordinated all inquiry to a rigid empiricism by doing this.

 

[leibowde84]

I agree, though the people who often like to babble about the hypostasis of science often don't acknowledge this, though most aren't actually scientists.. But you are, again, confusing using the use of rational analysis - mathematical, logic, and philosophy - by science with these disciplines being scientific. Just because science makes use of maths and logic, it does not mean logic and maths are scientific disciplines.

Of course, the reason I was talking about scientism was because there is some fluidity in the definition of science. There are people who would try to expand science to include logic, mathematics, and even a subordinated philosophy. My point was that they can't achieve a proper victory for scientism by doing this - they haven't subordinated all inquiry to a rigid empiricism by doing this.

What about scientists who experiment using only hypotheticals?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

What about scientists who experiment using only hypotheticals?

I'm not sure what this point is in response to. A scientist who experiments using hypotheticals is not the same, clearly, as a philosopher who does the same. The scientist hopes to test his, eventually using empirical data, and using scientific analysis as a starting point. The philosopher is often not interested in testing in this sense, and generally not in scientific testing. So, this does not show there is no distinction between these disciplines, if that is what you are getting at, though that would be a strange point, as surely it is matter of whether maths, logic, and philosophy should be treated as sciences and not whether their is no boundary separating the disciplines.

Anyway, my point is not that scientists do not use rational analysis, sometimes quite extensively. I am in fact arguing rigid empiricists and the scientistic, who often aren't scientists.

My original point was the scientism is wrong, whether or not this is shown by keeping the traditional, and quite defensible, distinction between on the one hand, natural science and, on the other hand, logic, philosophy, and mathematics, or we expand science to include these (as disciplines not just to use as tools) and note that this gives us a very different kind of science to that championed by the scientistic and the rigidly empiricist.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure what this point is in response to. A scientist who experiments using hypotheticals is not the same, clearly, as a philosopher who does the same. The scientist hopes to test his, eventually using empirical data, and using scientific analysis as a starting point. The philosopher is often not interested in testing in this sense, and generally not in scientific testing. So, this does not show there is no distinction between these disciplines, if that is what you are getting at, though that would be a strange point, as surely it is matter of whether maths, logic, and philosophy should be treated as sciences and not whether their is no boundary separating the disciplines.

Anyway, my point is not that scientists do not use rational analysis, sometimes quite extensively. I am in fact arguing rigid empiricists and the scientistic, who often aren't scientists.

My original point was the scientism is wrong, whether or not this is shown by keeping the traditional, and quite defensible, distinction between on the one hand, natural science and, on the other hand, logic, philosophy, and mathematics, or we expand science to include these (as disciplines not just to use as tools) and note that this gives us a very different kind of science to that championed by the scientistic and the rigidly empiricist.

Philosophers use thought experiments to prove their theories though. I think that is arguably employing science.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Philosophers use thought experiments to prove their theories though. I think that is arguably employing science.

A philosopher will accept a thought experiment as proof, at least if it can be converted into a proper argument. Generally, scientists don't. The proof for the scientist is really in the testing. As I mentioned to another poster, even theoretical physicists tend to wish to eventually back up their theories with empirical proof. Philosophers are different. They usually make use of some empirical inputs, but these are usually very general - like change exists to support Aquinas' First Way for the existence of God - rather than the more complex and specific inputs of natural science, and philosophers then don't tend to be interested in the sorts of rigorous empirical testing of the sciences.

Anyway, I believe our original discussion was about whether science can understand all. It seems to me that we could expand science in the way we suggest, but that would mean that rational speculation was valid knowledge, even without empirical support - if it were enough to thoroughly test an idea. And this is precisely what those who tend to bang on about the hypostasis science being the whole truth are trying to avoid. After the religious, philosophers who are not rigidly subordinate to natural science are their worst nightmare.

 

[Yerda]

Philosophers use thought experiments to prove their theories though. I think that is arguably employing science.

Nah, mate. It's just thinking. This has to happen in order to do science but in itself is not.

 

[paarsurrey]

leibowde84 said: ↑
Philosophers use thought experiments to prove their theories though. I think that is arguably employing science.

Nah, mate. It's just thinking. This has to happen in order to do science but in itself is not.

So; are the philosophical thoughts spirit/soul of the physical science and scientific experiments?
Regards

 

[leibowde84]

leibowde84 said: ↑
Philosophers use thought experiments to prove their theories though. I think that is arguably employing science.

So; are the philosophical thoughts spirit/soul of the physical science and scientific experiments?
Regards

I cannot see any reason to think otherwise. Philosophical thoughts are pretty much unavoidable in any endeavor. They are inherent in everything we do.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I cannot see any reason to think otherwise. Philosophical thoughts are pretty much unavoidable in any endeavor. They are inherent in everything we do.

But surely the distinction being made is about the disciplines themselves, not which disciplines science makes use of. Just because science makes use of a discipline, this doesn't mean that discipline is a natural science.

Always, what does need to be avoided, is equating philosophy to science and expecting philosophy make best explanation hypotheses like science, rather than analytical arguments. Much nonsense is caused by scientistic naturalists tending to equate a philosophical claim to a scientific hypothesis. For example, most arguments for Cartesian Dualism are philosophical arguments meant to show that this dualism must be correct, to be evaluated analytically; they are not scientific hypotheses meant to show this dualism is the best explanation given the current empirical evidence, to be evaluated scientifically.

 

[outhouse]

Much nonsense is caused by scientistic naturalists tending to equate a philosophical claim to a scientific hypothesis.

The nonsense is by people opposed to naturalism.

scientistic naturalists is some philosophical term often used by people promoting pseudoscience.

Always, what does need to be avoided

Is letting philosophy promote pseudoscience

 

[Augustus]

Science is not philosophy.

But science is useless without philosophy.

If more scientists knew more philosophy then science would be better. And if more people knew more philosophy then there would be fewer people adopting a naive 'scientism' as an ideology.

Both philosophy and the sciences are important.

 

[Yerda]

So; are the philosophical thoughts spirit/soul of the physical science and scientific experiments?
Regards

I expect they are important. Beyond that I don't know.

 

[outhouse]

If more scientists knew more philosophy then science would be better.

Not true, its sort of over exaggeration of what science actually does.

Science does not prove anything. It observes and reports.


Then philosophers argue the finding in relation to reality.


The problem with philosophy is its foundations were born in times of mythological explanations that still resonate through the practice. Its easy to make arguments out of nothing based on personal bias.

Nothing worse then a bad philosopher who uses his teaches his personal bias.

They could argue all day debating the shade black and its possible application as a color