• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science is based on philosophy

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Science does not prove 'things.' It falsifies theories and hypothesis based on objective verifiable physical evidence.
Yes, it does this via philosophical epistemological arguments which have at their core logic and truth claims which can be proven or falsified.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Science is based entirely on "revelation". That's the whole purpose of doing the scientific experiment: to 'reveal' previously unknown relationships within the physical realm.
Yes, very intuitive. I assume you are talking about revelation about the nature of the universe; not divine revelation from God.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Philosophy, on the other hand, deals with exploring and seeking revelation in the metaphysical (conceptual) realm.
In my view, philosophy is concerned with the realm of ideas, not the realm of matter. The revelation in this case is teleological and analytical using the rational powers of the mind.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Theology is a branch of philosophy related to the concept of "God", and religions are the various methodologies by which we humans apply our theological propositions to our experience of reality.
I think of theology as an aspect of religion; of using the tools of philosophical epistemological argumentation to construct arguments about various topics of interest to the religion. Usually the arguments lead to false claims since they are based on premises from the religion. In my view, revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are untrustworthy sources of truth and knowledge.

I don't consider theology to be a general purpose philosophical discipline. Considerations about God and spiritual matters from a philosophical perspective occur by reflection outside the confines of a religion.

In other words, I reject theology. It is useless. How many angels fit on the head of a pin. Whether God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Whether Jesus set aside his divinity temporarily in becoming human. This sort of thing is the domain of theology, all derived from religion. All useless.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
There may be idiots who claim that science is all
that is needed for truth and knowledge.
Some of these "idiots" are Ph.D.'s at well known universities. I don't think reflections about science and philosophy should result in calling people idiots.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Science does not do "truth" nor does it "prove"
things.
Philosophical epistemology uses logic and argumentation to prove arguments. What is a theory if not an argument having experimental evidence to support it?
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
I now think that we humans as a group over-estimate our ability to reason.
We can send people to the moon. Seems impressive when compared to my dog who for years now repeatedly rolls over and falls off the bed to the carpeted floor.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
or example, moral philosophers have been assuming for three hundred years or so that moral judgments (conscience) were judgments of reason. Science is now developing to support the notion that David Hume was right that our moral judgments are intuitive. But college Psych courses are still teaching a 60 year-old rationalist approach (Kohlberg) that has no science to support it.
Yes, any philosophical claim needs to not contradict modern science. Back then, they didn't know about quantum gravity.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Consciousness, surely, is a process, an activity of the brain, rather than an entity. It is the working of what one might call the operating system of the brain. Viewed in this way, I personally do not see that consciousness presents any special issues, as far as its treatment by science goes.
Yes, the aspect of consciousness involving brain function is strictly a scientific matter. But the subjective experience of consciousness can never be explained by science. It is outside of science, outside of the physical. I call this the spiritual realm.

Yes, it is the flow of electrons though the pattern of the neural network of the brain that generates consciousness. But the flow of electrons is not the consciousness. There is no scientific theory claiming that moving electrons generate consciousness (consciousness is not like magnetism). There is no quantum field named consciousness.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
However, the "world of ideas" is another thing and science is not the right toolkit for that at all, I quite agree.
I refer to the "world of ideas" as the spiritual realm. The reason science is not the right tool is because ideas reside in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
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 over simplify. Science is based upon a particular philosophy. The philosophy of science. Here is a link that outlines some of it's major components.
The philosophy of science
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
But the 'hardware' AND the 'operating system' are not the effective result. And its the result that really matters. It's the result that generates our metaphysical experience of existence. It's the result that is literally 'everything that we are'. Knowing the mechanisms is not knowing the results. Not even close.
Yes. There are two aspects to consciousness:
  1. The electrons flowing through the neural network of the brain
  2. The subjective experience of consciousness triggered by the above
Science can study the first but not the second.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Science (Haidt 2001) has found that moral judgments are immediate and the reasoning is done after the fact and often doesn't support the judgment (one can't presume intuitive judgments are wrong because they can't be explained well).
I question the interpretation of this conclusion about these kinds of studies.

In reflecting on my making of a decision, I ponder the options beforehand. As I come close to making the actual decision, my thinking about it changes; there is an urgency in the thoughts. Perhaps it is this pre-decision phase that is measured by the experiments.

I'm surprised such considerations are never mention in conjunction with these experiments. To assume there is no brain activity preceding a conscious decision is irresponsible.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Intuition is as often reason acting so quickly and subconsciously that the machinations go unnoticed.
Not all of mental activity is conscious. The mind solves problems unconsciously, and we suddenly magically know the answer to a problem we couldn't solve.
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Because existence encompasses far more than just physicality, which is all science can help us experience. That's why we engage in philosophy, and art, and religion. These offer us other ways of experiencing and understanding our existence beyond physicality.
I agree that science is limited to the physical realm; and that there is, in addition, a spiritual realm in which everything nonphysical resides (consciousness and its contents, reason, mathematics, emotions, thinking, intuition, God if there is one).
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Then, because we take great pride in our ability to reason, we think that we can improve upon the work of our master teacher (conscience) so we create moral rules and laws that serve only to make the topic of morality a confused mess.
As I understand it, there are people who have absolutely no conscience at all. And the contents of the conscience are learned, they are not innate from birth or before.

However, the soul does seem to know things it could not have learned after birth (or before).
 

tayla

My dog's name is Tayla
Social science is an institution labeling institutions.
Economics is a social science. The law of supply and demand is not a mere label, but an observable phenomenon. Psychology is a social science. Political philosophy is a social science. I would hope that the leaders of our governments are well-studied in political philosophy so they don't repeat past mistakes over and over and over again.
 
Top