Science is based on philosophy

[Audie]

The amount of philosophy in science is minimal.

In general, the "science is philosophy" people are
interchangeable with those who consider it a religion,
or a paradigm.

They will sometimes bring in For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God For it is written......

Or maybe "Man says, God says"

The point of it is too obvious to detail.

 

[cladking]

In general, the "science is philosophy" people are
interchangeable with those who consider it a religion,
or a paradigml.

This may be for a very simple reason; they are essentially correct.

Science isn't really "philosophy" per se, but we can only understand it in such terms because the axioms and definitions are a part of language.

It's not actually a paradigm but some of what you call "science" is a construct founded on false assumptions and the result is a false paradigm.

 

[sealchan]

In general, the "science is philosophy" people are
interchangeable with those who consider it a religion,
or a paradigm.

They will sometimes bring in For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God For it is written......

Or maybe "Man says, God says"

The point of it is too obvious to detail.

I've created threads that try to reduce the distance between science and religion, but I would never intend to make them twin siblings.

For me a religion needs to acknowledge that their is great good in the world just as it is without it having to be perfect. Science is a good role model in this regard.

Religion also needs to be a good, creative and intelligent response to contemporary wisdom or it becomes irrelevant and even harmful.

 

[Audie]

I've created threads that try to reduce the distance between science and religion, but I would never intend to make them twin siblings.

For me a religion needs to acknowledge that their is great good in the world just as it is without it having to be perfect. Science is a good role model in this regard.

Religion also needs to be a good, creative and intelligent response to contemporary wisdom or it becomes irrelevant and even harmful.

The idea of practicing some religion has no
interest or appeal for me, but perhaps there
is some aspect of one that would resonate
with me.

Rejection of "science" in one form or another
by those who have religious issues can and does
often result in a lot of harm.

That would be a good enough reason to try to
reduce some of the distance.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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...

I'm not really sure it matters what we call the best methods for obtaining information and knowledge of any type, or ultimately what they are rooted in... so long as they are recognized as our best methods, and that they continually produce for us.

If we really wanted to, we could say that "philosophy" developed from even more rudimentary ways of thinking. As people (or even animals we descended from) thought in terms of another's perspective, he/she/it was on the road of abstract thought. Let's call that mode of thinking "Aliumosophy". Therefore, I declare that "Philosophy" has it's roots in "Aliumosophy." And who among you really gives a crap?

 

[gnostic]

Do you believe it is perfectly obvious what should count as science and what should count as 'not science'?

I don’t think there is any such thing as “perfect”.

If you learn anything from science, scientists would use words, like “perfect”, “perfection”, “perfectly”, etc. Only philosophers or theists or spiritualists would use such pointless superlative terms.

But I’ve digressed.

What shouldn’t count as “science” are those hypotheses or theories that don’t meets the requirements of sufficient quantity of evidences that can verify the premises of models or verify each other evidences.

Only when you do have sufficient verifiable observations, evidences and data, then it is “probable” that the models are true, scientifically.

That’s what Scientific Model is all about, to ensure that any presented models are objective, based on evidences and not personal desire or wants or ego.

The whole idea of rigorously testing any hypothesis or theory is verification.

Peer Review are used to ensure that the person presenting his or hers or their models are not cheating, by doctoring their test results or data.

If any model, be they be hypothesis or theory, don’t meet the requirements of -

1. Falsifiability,
2. Scientific Method
3. and Peer Review

- then it isn’t science. It is that simple.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of different philosophies, do you think they are correct in their knowledge, logic or reasoning.

That’s the different between today’s useless philosophies and science.

• What methodology do these philosophies have that determine which are correct and which are incorrect?
• Do they have mechanisms for correcting philosophies?
• How do you know which philosophies are objective and which are biased?

Do you believe that there are no ethical questions that remain unanswered in the sciences?

I am talking about Natural Science, like Physical Science and Life Science.

Natural Science don’t deal with the questions with ethics, which I believe falls under Social Science.

Social science deal with human behaviors, human activities, human cultures, etc, so it doesn’t have to be rigorously tested like Natural Science and don’t require to follow Scientific Method specifications.

Why in the bloody hell you are bringing up ethic here?

I know that Natural Science don’t have all answers especially ones that fall under social science fields.

 

[cladking]

If any model, be they be hypothesis or theory, don’t meet the requirements of

1. and Peer Review

So if people lived forever it would be impossible to have one scientist! It would be impossible to have science because no one could be first!

 

[Augustus]

I don’t think there is any such thing as “perfect”.

If you learn anything from science, scientists would use words, like “perfect”, “perfection”, “perfectly”, etc.

And therein lies the rub...

Once you note the obvious answer that scientific knowledge isn't perfect, you now have a philosophical question: how valid is this knowledge?

What shouldn’t count as “science” are those hypotheses or theories that don’t meets the requirements of sufficient quantity of evidences that can verify the premises of models or verify each other evidences.

Only when you do have sufficient verifiable observations, evidences and data, then it is “probable” that the models are true, scientifically.

What counts as "sufficient" evidence? Again a philosophical question.

What makes a model valid? Again a philosophical question

If any model, be they be hypothesis or theory, don’t meet the requirements of -

1. Falsifiability,
2. Scientific Method
3. and Peer Review

- then it isn’t science. It is that simple.

The thing is, it isn't.

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend. I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of different philosophies, do you think they are correct in their knowledge, logic or reasoning.

Where do you think science actually came from? Did it magically appear out of thin air in the 18th C and everyone just said 'let's do science from now on'?

That’s the different between today’s useless philosophies and science.

• What methodology do these philosophies have that determine which are correct and which are incorrect?
• Do they have mechanisms for correcting philosophies?
• How do you know which philosophies are objective and which are biased?

What methodology do these philosophies sciences have that determine which are correct and which are incorrect? Identifying the validity of knowledge is philosophy

Do they have mechanisms for correcting philosophies scientific errors? Again, philosophy

How do you know which philosophies scientific methodologies are objective and which are biased? What does it mean to be objective? How do we account for bias? Again, you've guessed it, philosophical questions.

I am talking about Natural Science, like Physical Science and Life Science.

Natural Science don’t deal with the questions with ethics

There are no questions of medical ethics?

There are no ethical questions about genetic modification of humans? Eugenics? etc.

Why in the bloody hell you are bringing up ethic here?

Because you said philosophy was useless, which means you consider scientific ethics to be of no importance.

 

[tayla]

If you go to any of lecture in metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, they are ALL JUST TALK. They constant argue back and for, so they are just pointless yap, yap, yap, babble, babble, babble.

They DO NO active investigation on nature or reality, they look for no verifiable evidences, they do no real-world testings or experiments.

Yes. Philosophy is not science.

 

[gnostic]

So if people lived forever it would be impossible to have one scientist! It would be impossible to have science because no one could be first!

What are you talking about?

Who live forever?

First what?

You are not making sense. Are you just give me a hypothetical scenario that have no possible way to answer it?

 

[tayla]

But today, science has moved away from all philosophies.

These philosophies provide the bases for science and the framework for its methodologies. Abandoning them is like jettisoning mathematics after we are finished designing and constructing a bridge.

Every time you propose a theory or design an experiment, you are utilizing the underlying philosophy that supports science.

 

[tayla]

If you go to any of lecture in metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, they are ALL JUST TALK. They constant argue back and for, so they are just pointless yap, yap, yap, babble, babble, babble.

Yes, they have run out of practical applications. These disciplines should be applied to the spiritual realm, containing those things existing outside of the physical, beyond the scope of science, such things as the subjective experience of consciousness and its contents, and how impossible biological molecular machines came to be.

Certainly political philosophy is useful, unless you want to live in a dictatorship. And moral philosophy too, unless you want to live in a violent society.

Scientists seem to spend all their time speculating about multiple universes, the multiverse, and other topics, with no possibility of designing experiments. This is philosophy (it's certainly not science). Scientists love philosophy.

 

[tayla]

philosophy has no real world application. If I was to do a whole semester on any philosophy, I would be wasting my times on subject that don't contribute anything at all.

Neither does art, music, drama, sports, and etc. They are all a complete waste of time and should be expunged from our culture. We should limit our activities to building bridges and flying to mars to find more food for the human species.

 

[tayla]

Not quite, philosophy is in the mind, science is in the physical, hey have different work ethics, the subject matter if different.

The work of science is performed by humans who have minds. If you remove the mind component of science, all you have left is hunting and gathering and having offspring.

 

[tayla]

I interpret the "world of ideas" to comprise all the Humanities

My point is that ideas are not physical. There is no natural law of ideas. There is no quantum field called ideas. Ideas reside in the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

There are a significant number of theists that would assert that the universe is "God expressed", so that to know the physical nature of existence is to know something of the physical nature of "God".

If a theist bases their ideas on divine revelation, their views are not to be trusted unless they can be validated independently via philosophy. In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

Once you note the obvious answer that scientific knowledge isn't perfect, you now have a philosophical question: how valid is this knowledge?

Once you start thinking, that scientific knowledge has to be perfect, then it is clear to me that you have never study science at all.

Any scientific theory can be questioned, modified or replaced, if the evidences support changes or the alternative theory.

It is what it mean by falsifiability, Augustus. Any statement that can be tested, can either be refuted if it is false, or be verified and validated if it is true.

The heliocentric and geocentric models are examples of geocentric model being accepted as science, which even the church advocated.

Aristarchus was the first to postulate the earth move, along with other planets, orbiting the sun, hence the heliocentric model, was rejected for nearly 2 millennia, because he could never prove his hypothesis. Claudius Ptolemy wasn’t the first to believe in the geocentric model, where the earth was stationary, while the sun and planets traverse the Earth’s sky, but Ptolemy was the first to write a treatise on geocentric model.

It was until Copernicus prove it mathematically and Galileo prove it through observation via telescope, that Aristarchus’ original model was finally vindicated.

The thing is that Ptolemy’s model was considered “science” for 14-1500 years, but it was wrong astronomically.

Was Aristarchus’ model or that of Copernicus’ or Galileo’s models perfect?

No. Over the decades, the theory was increasing refined, corrected and modified.

No scientific theory is perfect, but it can be correct, if there are verifiable evidences to back it up.

It is called progress, and has nothing to do with any philosophy.

 

[tayla]

The realm of ideation is the 'metaphysical' realm. It is real, and it really does effectively interact with the physical realm.

What you refer to as the metaphysical realm, I refer to as the spiritual realm. But I limit the meaning of the spiritual realm to only those things not residing in the physical realm. The only things of this category I know of are:

1. Consciousness and its contents (ideas, emotions, mind, will, thoughts, memories, etc)
2. The designer of the universe and of biological molecular machines.
3. That goodness and beauty are infinitely superior to badness and ugliness.

Maybe there is more, but I doubt humans have access to it. Certainly not from religions or spiritual paths because: revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

 

[tayla]

We know of PhD holders who are creatuionists.

I don't consider theology degrees as valid.
Ph.D.'s who hold to provably unscientific views such as creationism should be ignored.

I'm not saying I accept everything that every Ph.D. says; only that if someone doesn't have a Ph.D., I assume they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Audie]

Scientists seem to spend all their time speculating about multiple universes, the multiverse, and other topics, with no possibility of designing experiments. This is philosophy (it's certainly not science). Scientists love philosophy.

In bold is a rather weird and obviously untrue statement
unless you are merely stating what seems to you to be,
rather than making reference to something that
might actually be so.