Science is based on philosophy

[gnostic]

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.

Now you are being ridiculous.

I have said that philosophy should be expunged.

I am not the book burning type of person. I valued history too much, so I don’t want to get rid of philosophies.

There are philosophies that are wrong, some that are outdated, some that are useless, so my advice would be to preserve them, know where they went wrong, learn from their mistakes.

I have never stated that we should get rid of them.

But I do think it pretty stupid to follow something like any philosophy that are clearly wrong. All you would be doing is perpetuating the same mistakes again, just for saving philosophy for itself. That’s nothing more than personal ego/bias and plain stupidity.

 

[tayla]

Science does not prove things. Why are trying to argue with that?

Philosophical epistemological argumentation involves proof, which involves logical truth and falsity. Science uses this kind of argumentation to support their theories.

 

[Audie]

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.

That is not a very good assumption.

 

[tayla]

The amount of philosophy in science is minimal.

Logic is part of philosophy. I hope scientists are using logic often.

 

[Audie]

Philosophical epistemological argumentation involves proof, which involves logical truth and falsity. Science uses this kind of argumentation to support their theories.

i never have been a fan of philosophy, so I dont
speak from deep authority, but cannot philosophy and
logic be used to prove all manner of things that are
not so?

Science does not do proof at all, and as for theories,
those need evidence. Verifiable facts.

Theories are useful tools, not arguments
though no doubt there is much fun to be had
arguing competing theories.

Comparing a way of thought that involves proof
with one that not only does not but by nature cannot
do proof seems a little off.

 

[Audie]

Logic is part of philosophy. I hope scientists are using logic often.

You do know that words are also a part of philosophy.

 

[Augustus]

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.

You seem to have completely missed the point.

All of those questions should quite obviously have been answered no. And if they were answered no then you are acknowledging that philosophy is not useless.

That you don't understand why doesn't change this.

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

It has everything to do with philosophy, unless you are arguing that natural philosophy has nothing to do with philosophy.

Where do you think science came from? A genie in a lamp?

 

[gnostic]

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.

Heliocentric model on planetary motion was in essence theoretical for plus 1500 years. It took that long to finally prove Aristarchus was right and Ptolemy’s geocentric model wrong.

Einstein’s Special Relativity and General Relativity were theoretical like Multiverse model, but eventually they found the way to test them.

And btw, Multiverse isn’t a scientific theory, so it isn’t science.

But it is feasible mathematically if not experimentally, that’s why it is catalog as being theoretical. It isn’t accepted as science, and I personally haven’t accepted as science.

 

[gnostic]

It has everything to do with philosophy, unless you are arguing that natural philosophy has nothing to do with philosophy.

Where do you think science came from? A genie in a lamp?

You haven’t been paying to attention to what I have been saying , Augustus.

Before the 19th century, science and philosophy (more specifically Natural Philosophy) were indistinguishable, because in the past you can be philosophers and scientists. In the past, they did works of scientists, even though they weren’t called scientists.

But today, philosophies are useless piece of craps, particularly modern metaphysics. And philosophers of today are nothing more than armchair windbags, providing nothing useful, and most of them are not scientists.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

The work of science is controlled by the scientific method

If you removed the mind component then the stone age wont cut it, we will be in paleozpa

And if you moved the god component of religion we would be on the 31st century.

However what has this to do with the OP?

 

[Augustus]

Before the 19th century, science and philosophy (more specifically Natural Philosophy) were indistinguishable, because in the past you can be philosophers and scientists. In the past, they did works of scientists, even though they weren’t called scientists.

They weren't 'philosophers and scientists', natural philosophy is a branch of philosophy. They were philosophers. What we now call science is simply a continuation of natural philosophy and is based on certain philosophical assumptions that, amazingly, are also philosophy.

You seem to think that one day it magically became science and at that point all links to thousands of years of philosophy simply vanished (or that they had never been philosophy in the first place).

What happened is, over time, we started to use the term science for a particular branch of philosophy. That didn't stop it being a branch of philosophy, and it didn't stop numerous scientific questions being philosophical questions same as they always had been.

But today, philosophies are useless piece of craps, particularly modern metaphysics. And philosophers of today are nothing more than armchair windbags, providing nothing useful, and most of them are not scientists.

The main problem is you don't have the slightest clue what philosophy is, which is why you can't understand why you are so wrong. It's also probably why you keep on pluralising it as you mistake the discipline for specific doctrines (which you seem to associate with only things like post-modernism or whatever rather than those, like naturalism, that underpin the sciences)

If you just read the wiki you'd be exponentially better informed.
Philosophy - Wikipedia
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Questions regarding the foundations, methods, and implications of science are philosophy. Questions regarding the validity of knowledge are philosophy. Questions regarding how we should utilise imperfect information are philosophy. Questions about how simple and complex domains differ and how this impacts scientific understanding are philosophy.

Gnostic: philosophy is useless
Einstein:

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.

 

[tayla]

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.

Science is founded on metaphysical assumptions about reality and ontological assumptions of being. I don't think it's correct to claim science is based on false paradigms and false assumptions.

I agree that materialism/physicalism is false, but science is limited to the physical so this is not a problem except when trying to propose that the subjective experience of consciousness (for example) is physical.

 

[tayla]

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

In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are not trustworthy sources of truth and knowledge. Therefore, they are often harmful to self and society; or at least irrelevant -- about the same as art, fiction, and sports.

 

[tayla]

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

To reject science is to reject reality.

 

[tayla]

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.

Interesting that you make a distinction between natural science and social science. In my view, the domain of science is the physical realm, the domain of social science is the spiritual realm. Ideas, language, and etc, reside in the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

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

Yes, very perceptive. This is one of the roles of philosophy in science.

 

[tayla]

There are no questions of medical ethics?

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

I hope philosophy-rejecting scientists don't ignore these kinds of non-scientific questions.

 

[PureX]

Since you can never produce an example ...

I am not going toi name anyone, or quote their posts. So you may as well stop pestering me about it. You have eyes, and can read just as well as I can. So if you aren't seeing it in many of the posts on here, already, you aren't going to.

 

[PureX]

I wouldn't be surprised. The experts betray us at every turn. There's always somebody waiting to stab you in the back and turn you into their tool.

These days, the "experts" are often just another biased dolt with a computer and some writing skills.

My experience with 'postmodernism" goes all the way back to the early 1980s, when I was in grad school. My field is fine art, but "postmodernism" began as an art movement as much as a philosophical one. At the time, artists were reading Foucault and exploring 'deconstructive eclecticism', and so on. Everything was "neo-" this, and
neo-" that. Not necessarily reinvention, but certainly a lot of reinterpretation. In fact, I think the actual term "postmodernism" was first coined in relation to a genre of architecture.

 

[Audie]

I am not going toi name anyone, or quote their posts. So you may as well stop pestering me about it. You have eyes, and can read just as well as I can. So if you aren't seeing it in many of the posts on here, already, you aren't going to.

hahaha

I knew all along you could not do it
but that excuse sounds kinda like
something Joseph Smith would say
about showing his gold books.