Religion/Philosophy and Science - like Oil and Water

[Quiddity]

They are inseperable. The difference comes down to the degrees of reductionism a scientist wishes to employ. Even then, it means nothing if they can't materialize and show evidence for said claim.

 

[doppelganger]

Religion/Philosophy and Science just do not mix.

The physical sciences grow out of the traditions of Philosophy, and are heavily informed and shaped by Philosophy.

 

[Quiddity]

Science is philosophy. It's a subset of metaphysics in that it is a rigorous method founded in specific domains of epistemology and ontology: it persues tentative empirical knowledge to the best of what our instruments can give us from the best of what empirical evidence is available.

There is no distinction between science and philosophy, not really.

This is as cool as speaking French.....

Just curious as to how reductionist [if at all] do you lean? Would you for example subscribe to:

“Scientism”… is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today. (pp. 6-7)"

The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions

 

[doppelganger]

They are inseperable. The difference comes down to the degrees of reductionism a scientist wishes to employ. Even then, it means nothing if they can't materialize and show evidence for said claim.

Not really. The difference (as to religious beliefs) comes down to the insistence on believers talking about the "existence" of particular things, which places them on the very uneven playing field of the scientific method.

 

[Meow Mix]

It would be correctly called Natural Philosophy

In a sense, though I believe the term "natural philosophy" is typically used for early Greek approaches to what we now call science -- there are some fundamental differences. Science is certainly an extension of those endeavors, however.

 

[Quiddity]

Not really. The difference (as to religious beliefs) comes down to the insistence on believers talking about the "existence" of particular things, which places them on the very uneven playing field of the scientific method.

Nothing in my sentence was meant toward religion at all. I was simply speaking of philosophy here.

 

[Meow Mix]

This is as cool as speaking French.....

Just curious as to how reductionist [if at all] do you lean? Would you for example subscribe to:

“Scientism”… is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today. (pp. 6-7)"

The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions

I very much disagree with scientism. It's self-defeating: it rejects the very foundation on which science itself rests. You can't empirically test the scientific method itself, so to claim that knowledge is only attainable through such processes is to absurdly self-refute.

There are other methods of attaining knowledge than through science because there are other pervues of knowledge than the empirically attainable. In fact, science doesn't even get us that far until we bring metaphysics to the table: that we can use Einstein's equations to correct Newtonian calculations of Mercury's orbit is great, but the ability to suggest that space has curvature based on these calculations is purely metaphysical.

"Anything beyond the prediction of the outcome of experiment is metaphysics," said Bohr. He's right; and metaphysics isn't a "dirty-word" as some people assume. That's mostly because it's been hi-jacked by New Agers and others to refer to superstitious or mystical stuff; but the philosophical context of the word is still intact. Science is 1/3 actual science, 1/3 mathematics, and 1/3 metaphysics.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Science is a philosophy.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also it should be clear that there are approaches that lead to truth without requiring science: I can assert that if A > B and B > C then A > C. Sure, you could empirically test this if you like using specifics rather than variables; but the key here is that the science isn't necessary for the knowledge here.

In fact, if we examine what knowledge is -- justified true belief -- then we'll find that there are many knowledges possible without the use of science.

There are five known justifiers:
1) Sensory perception
2) Memory
3) Introspection
4) Anecdote/Testimony
5) Reason

Clearly, each of these has a little to do with science; but a great swath of true beliefs can be justified with these in non-scientific ways: science necessarily relies heavily on (1); though as with my example above there are entire categories of concepts that are justified with (5) alone, for instance.

 

[Skwim]

Science is a philosophy.

Interesting. How are you defining "philosophy"?

 

[dust1n]

I'm pretty sure all of religion and science are entirely dependent on philosophy to exist... They are pretty much inseparable. Philosophy is the only way to even explore the questions both fields pose...