Science is based on philosophy

[PureX]

I've never heard of anyone who didn't separate the conscious mind (which includes the reasoning function) from the unconscious (which includes the intuitive function) before. Is there any support for your position in science or philosophy?

Well, being that we have only one brain in our heads, and 'mind' happens within that brain, I see no reason to presume that there are two of them. Clearly, we are not consciously aware of all that happens as 'mind', but the happening, itself, is the brain reasoning. When we connect, compare, and contrast incoming sensual input with remembered sensual input, we are 'reasoning'. And we we assess the new against the remembered so as to 'identify it', we are reasoning. And all this happens so fast that we are not consciously aware of our doing it. But we are doing it. It's how we 'think', and how we 'know', whether we're consciously aware of it, or not (as with intuition).

 

[David T]

Sorry the sun rises and the sun sets independent of philosophy ...

LOLOL.. Indeed it does. Enough navel gazing.

Indeed!

Now onto important stuff. MUSIC!!!

 

[sooda]

I agree. The term for this new 'religious' belief in science as the only pathway to knowledge and truth is called "scientism". And because our schools avoid religion and philosophy and art as part of a basic education curriculum, this "scientism" is running rampant and unchecked among a lot of our young people.

American students don't excel in the sciences. .. What do you mean?

 

[gnostic]

Science is based on philosophy, therefore, philosophy is essential in determining truth and knowledge. People often claim that all that is needed is science.

The scientific method of science is a philosophical construct, using epistemology to determine the nature of truth and knowledge, and how to prove things.

Other aspects of reality (or of claimed reality) fall under the category of religion and spirituality; but these should be evaluated via philosophy. Usually, these are considered as revealed knowledge from God. But revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge: they require philosophical evidence to back them up. (And also, they should not contradict science.)

You do realise that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different schools of philosophies, and the majority of these schools are not even remotely “scientific”?

The only philosophy that has a long history of studying nature is Natural Philosophy, which was started by the Ancient Greek philosophers, with a primitive form of observation and experiment-type evidence gathering.

Natural Philosophy continued to be used after Antiquities, and as Augustus pointed out right up to the 19th century, where “science” moved away from philosophy to what we now call today as Natural Science.

Natural Science includes Life Science and Physical Science.

Natural science has moved away from metaphysics just as moved away from theology in this century.

The Age of Enlightenment saw secular movement where the separation of State and Religion in Europe during the 18th century, but it was slower to catch on in the areas of education, which still saw theology still interfering with education, including science, which then still known as Natural Philosophy.

It was the 19th century, especially by one biologist by the name of Thomas Henry Huxley, a friend of Charles Darwin, who successfully reformed universities across Britain, to separate science and religion. Huxley’s achievement had the effect that saw increasing divide between science and philosophy.

Just because science was based on Natural Philosophy, doesn’t mean that all other philosophies are valid in science.

 

[PureX]

American students don't excel in the sciences. .. What do you mean?

Scientism isn't science. In fact, no real scientist believes that science is the only pathway to truth. Or even that it is a pathway to truth. They know it's just a process used to help us identify functional interactions within the physical realm of existence.

 

[joe1776]

Well, being that we have only one brain in our heads, and 'mind' happens within that brain, I see no reason to presume that there are two of them. Clearly, we are not consciously aware of all that happens as 'mind', but the happening, itself, is the brain reasoning. When we connect, compare, and contrast incoming sensual input with remembered sensual input, we are 'reasoning'. And we we assess the new against the remembered so as to 'identify it', we are reasoning. And all this happens so fast that we are not consciously aware of our doing it. But we are doing it. It's how we 'think', and how we 'know', whether we're consciously aware of it, or not (as with intuition).

So, since you didn't answer my question. I'll assume that you are unaware of support for your position in science or philosophy.

The conventional position is that the brain has two distinct divisions. We speak of the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. The conventional position makes sense to me.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do you see as being the "wrong direction"? I agree that relativism is the fuel powering 'post-modern' thought, but it's part of our concept of reality, now. We can't 'unknow' it.

But we can use it to genuinely progress if we don't destroy ourselves by four reaking out in fear of it.

Postmodernism is a tool, and it should remain only a tool rather than a philosophy of life and society. People have to choose to live. Also beauty is not arbitrary. Society matters, and culture accumulates in the absence of war. Better culture is better, not equivalent to all others. Science is a discipline requiring people to suspend assumptions and work hard at paying attention to measurements, then work based on those measurements. That discipline matters, has more value than no discipline, accomplishes more, therefore is superior to other approaches to discovery of nature and has implications for philosophy. It doesn't replace our choices about what to believe and can't. They derive from our choice to live.

 

[PureX]

So, since you didn't answer my question. I'll assume that you are unaware of support for your position in science or philosophy.

The conventional position is that the brain has two distinct divisions. We speak of the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. The conventional position makes sense to me.

"Two distinct divisions" is all well and good as a matter of perspective. But perspectives are relative, and therefor not absolute. Being an intelligent, thinking human, I am not in need of the validation of others when formulating an observation or opinion from my own intellectual/experiential perspective. My understanding of the definition of the term 'reason' clearly tells me that it refers to the process by which the brain 'thinks', and thereby becomes a 'mind'; with it's requisite conceptual paradigm of reality. And this would be the case whether we are consciously aware of our doing so, or we are not (most of the time we are not). So we do not have two minds. We have one mind that is functioning both within, and beneath our conscious awareness.

 

[PureX]

Postmodernism is a tool, and it should remain only a tool rather than a philosophy of life and society. People have to choose to live. Also beauty is not arbitrary. Society matters, and culture accumulates in the absence of war. Better culture is better, not equivalent to all others. Science is a discipline requiring people to suspend assumptions and work hard at paying attention to measurements, then work based on those measurements. That discipline matters, has more value than no discipline, accomplishes more, therefore is superior to other approaches to discovery of nature and has implications for philosophy. It doesn't replace our choices about what to believe and can't. They derive from our choice to live.

"Post-modernism" is just the term we use to refer to the cultural and philosophical epoch following that which had been designated, "modernism". It is marked by the intellectual process knows as "deconstruction", wherein previous long-standing and unquestioned social, economic, cultural, and ideological precepts get 'picked apart' and re-examined based on a recognition of their relative viability. And then, ideally, these precepts get re-assembled into a new but still somewhat eclectic conceptual construct that improves human vision and functionality. It's a reasonable, and now, inevitable, 'movement'. But as with all such major philosophical/cultural changes, there will be fear, and strife, and misuse.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. This is a philosophical construct, based on epistemology and having certain assumption based on metaphysics.

No assumption based on anything after the hypothesis. Experiment, measurement and observation are not assumption

 

[atanu]

Science is based on philosophy, therefore, philosophy is essential in determining truth and knowledge. People often claim that all that is needed is science.

The scientific method of science is a philosophical construct, using epistemology to determine the nature of truth and knowledge, and how to prove things.

Other aspects of reality (or of claimed reality) fall under the category of religion and spirituality; but these should be evaluated via philosophy. Usually, these are considered as revealed knowledge from God. But revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge: they require philosophical evidence to back them up. (And also, they should not contradict science.)

Carlo Rovelli believes Physics needs philosophy. Philosophy needs physics.

Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics

 

[Brickjectivity]

"Post-modernism" is just the term we use to refer to the cultural and philosophical epoch following that which had been designated, "modernism". It is marked by the intellectual process knows as "deconstruction", wherein previous long-standing and unquestioned social, economic, cultural, and ideological precepts get 'picked apart' and re-examined based on a recognition of their relative viability. And then, ideally, these precepts get re-assembled into a new but still somewhat eclectic conceptual construct that improves human vision and functionality. It's a reasonable, and now, inevitable, 'movement'. But as with all such major philosophical/cultural changes, there will be fear, and strife, and misuse.

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches and disciplines, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality. Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.

It has targets of criticism, and it rejects things but doesn't provide anything beyond that. Its similar to Marxist propaganda rather than just a movement and has common roots with Marxism. This was what was preached to us here in the USA, over in the USSR, in China, too. It had interesting ideas, but too many made the unfortunate mistake of turning it into a way of life. They just threw everything away and expected that the pieces would fall back together in an orderly fashion. The pieces didn't, and they don't. All the countries suffer that deconstructed their societies instead of letting them change gradually and by individual choices. Mid 1980's it seems the two huge deconstructed countries made a turn and decided they were Ok with slower changes. They would accept what they had and work with it for the better. They would be skeptical but not toss out their roots as they had before.

You make a point about scientism not being science. I point out it throws away everything except that which Science does not, then expects Science to be all that is needed. This dovetails neatly with postmodernism as a system and marxism, both of which expect a complete overturn of previous ways. It is throwing all the eggs into the air expecting they'll pack more neatly when they come back down. Its impatient and doesn't want to repack the eggs by hand.

 

[PureX]

It has targets of criticism, and it rejects things but doesn't provide anything beyond that. Its similar to Marxist propaganda rather than just a movement and has common roots with Marxism. This was what was preached to us here in the USA, over in the USSR, in China, too. It had interesting ideas, but too many made the unfortunate mistake of turning it into a way of life. They just threw everything away and expected that the pieces would fall back together in an orderly fashion. The pieces didn't, and they don't. All the countries suffer that deconstructed their societies instead of letting them change gradually and by individual choices. Mid 1980's it seems the two huge deconstructed countries made a turn and decided they were Ok with slower changes. They would accept what they had and work with it for the better. They would be skeptical but not toss out their roots as they had before.

You make a point about scientism not being science. I point out it throws away everything except that which Science does not, then expects Science to be all that is needed. This dovetails neatly with postmodernism as a system and marxism, both of which expect a complete overturn of previous ways. It is throwing all the eggs into the air expecting they'll pack more neatly when they come back down. Its impatient and doesn't want to repack the eggs by hand.

I think you've created somewhat of a postmodern boogey-man for yourself. It's a term that covers a great many ideas and activities, and ultimately everything past the end of the "modern era". It has nothing whatever to do with Marxism, that I am aware of. Nor is it especially amoral. It does, however, encompass a general questioning (deconstruction) of long-held precepts about what things are and what they mean to us now that we've realized the relative nature of our experience and understanding of existence.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think you've created somewhat of a postmodern boogey-man for yourself. It's a term that covers a great many ideas and activities, and ultimately everything past the end of the "modern era". It has nothing whatever to do with Marxism, that I am aware of. Nor is it especially amoral. It does, however, encompass a general questioning (deconstruction) of long-held precepts about what things are and what they mean to us now that we've realized the relative nature of our experience and understanding of existence.

You keep saying people are freaking out or have constructed bogeymen, yet you yourself affirm scientism is something you've encountered. All I've done is compare it to post modernism. You didn't agree and also said postmodernism wasn't connected with marxism.

There's an article showing the relation between post modernism and marxism and between post modernism and historicism here which I think more shows it grows out of marxism. So there's no bogeyman, but our discussion went off on a tangent.

 

[tayla]

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574) Einstein’s Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I added bold italics.

 

[tayla]

The philosophy of science deals with the foundations, methods and implications of the sciences and is essential for them to function effectively.

Very well stated, thank you.

 

[tayla]

"science relies on philosophy, therefore Jesus!

Philosophy doesn't lead to religion because revealed religions are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge. True philosophy doesn't lead to error.

 

[tayla]

science can prove gravity, conservation of energy, and the speed of light.

That kind of thing is the proper domain of science, not the social sciences. Only philosophy combined with mathematical tools can learn things about the social sciences.

 

[tayla]

Philosophical evidence? I have a problem with this without an explanation.

If you want to know whether some religious claim is true, you need to use epistemological argumentation to access it's truth claims.

 

[tayla]

Science is based on the objective verifiable evidence. A Philosophy of Science has developed over the years to develop Methodological Naturalism

Exactly. Science is tightly coupled with philosophy.