Science is based on philosophy

[tayla]

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”?

I am referring primarily to the philosophy of science which depends on epistemology and metaphysics; even ontology.

 

[tayla]

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

Yes, I agree.

I am merely claiming that science uses philosophical tools such as the scientific method, logic, and epistemological argumentation.

 

[tayla]

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.

Listening to them on YouTube, I would say most of them think the only way to truth is via science, because the domain of science encompasses all of reality.

 

[gnostic]

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.

And you think that none of us understand that?

Because you using the word “scientism” here, seemed to be targeting at us, especially those who might disagree with you on certain issues.

I have accepted science because of the quality of the scientific theory and the quality and quantity of evidences that can be verified.

I don’t accept science as matter of BELIEF, which you have associated with scientism.

And no, I don’t think science has solution for everything.

What make you think anyone here, scientists or those people with science-related jobs, believe that science is a solution for everything?

I am thinking you are making false accusations and attacking straw man here. It is really dishonest tactic and gross generalization to point your misguided finger of scientism followers, when there are none.

 

[David T]

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.

Social collective agreement is a phenomena. Writing fiction is phenomena. Believing things fictiously as real is phenomena.

So we could say believing things fictiously is real phenomena. Therefore would we say what is fictiously believed is real because it is a phenomena?

Here somewhere i think kants trancendental illusion starts to kick in peoples thinking.

 

[tayla]

Experiment, measurement and observation are not assumption

These are the premises of the argument in support of the theory at hand. Arguing for the truth claims of a scientific theory is a philosophical epistemological activity.

 

[tayla]

Carlo Rovelli believes Physics needs philosophy. Philosophy needs physics.

Yes, thank you for providing the example. I think there are many other scientists who also say so.

 

[tayla]

Science is based upon a particular philosophy. The philosophy of science. Here is a link that outlines some of it's major components.

I agree. There are other branches of philosophy besides the science of philosophy.

 

[tayla]

Whats philosophy based on?

It's the human mind thinking. It's a spiritual matter really, since the mind resides in the spiritual realm. Philosophy is concerned with ideas, and these reside in the spiritual realm.

 

[tayla]

I have accepted science because of the quality of the scientific theory and the quality and quantity of evidences that can be verified.

Yes, of course.

The process you describe is philosophy; epistemology and the philosophy of science specifically.

 

[Road Warrior]

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.)

Please provide examples of "philosophical evidence". I can provide examples of physics such as you taking a brick, holding it 2 feet directly about your head and dropping it.

 

[tayla]

would we say what is fictiously believed is real because it is a phenomena?

The claims made in fiction (for example, historical claims of Christianity) do not match with reality. That is why they are called fiction.

However, the conscious experiencer of any kind of stories, fiction or otherwise; this conscious experiencer resides in the spiritual realm. It's part of what is called the soul.

 

[David T]

And you think that none of us understand that?

Because you using the word “scientism” here, seemed to be targeting at us, especially those who might disagree with you on certain issues.

I have accepted science because of the quality of the scientific theory and the quality and quantity of evidences that can be verified.

I don’t accept science as matter of BELIEF, which you have associated with scientism.

And no, I don’t think science has solution for everything.

What make you think anyone here, scientists or those people with science-related jobs, believe that science is a solution for everything?

I am thinking you are making false accusations and attacking straw man here. It is really dishonest tactic and gross generalization to point your misguided finger of scientism followers, when there are none.

"I don’t accept science as matter of BELIEF, which you have associated with scientism"

Gnostic excellent point, except science like anything else is left with the gap between the experience and the narrative. The narrative itself is not the reality of something its the narrative how we are experiencing of something. I might say i observe soemthing i measure test repeat pass it on everyone agrees it becomes a part of the ongoing narrative and over time we go well ok thats not true, this is true.

I understand how that can be taken so no i am not advocating suddenly bigfoot is real. Heacen forbid we already havw bigfoot is real ecwn as firmly as science attempts to be on things anyway.

Never mind i dont want bigfoot is real!!!!!!

 

[David T]

It's the human mind thinking. It's a spiritual matter really, since the mind resides in the spiritual realm. Philosophy is concerned with ideas, and these reside in the spiritual realm.

Indeed!!!!!!
Now we are getting somewhere!!

There was a massive split huge split in the ancient world on the term logos, between heraclitus and pythagoras. Please tell me what you know about these two views.

 

[tayla]

Please provide examples of "philosophical evidence". I can provide examples of physics such as you taking a brick, holding it 2 feet directly about your head and dropping it.

For example, the Christian claim that 3,000,000+ people wandered the barren desert for 40 years with their animals and newly acquired weapons. Using philosophical epistemological argumentation, we can assess this claim.

Questions such as: Did the animals have manna too? Is there any such thing as manna at all? Is the whole Exodus story just a figment of someones fanciful imagination and unworthy of belief?

 

[David T]

The claims made in fiction (for example, historical claims of Christianity) do not match with reality. That is why they are called fiction.

However, the conscious experiencer of any kind of stories, fiction or otherwise; this conscious experiencer resides in the spiritual realm. It's part of what is called the soul.

Yes.

 

[tayla]

There was a massive split huge split in the ancient world on the term logos, between heraclitus and pythagoras. Please tell me what you know about these two views.

I read about it once. Christians use the word in a very different meaning than those two.

 

[Road Warrior]

For example, the Christian claim that 3,000,000+ people wandered the barren desert for 40 years with their animals and newly acquired weapons. Using philosophical epistemological argumentation, we can assess this claim.

Questions such as: Did the animals have manna too? Is there any such thing as manna at all? Is the whole Exodus story just a figment of someones fanciful imagination and unworthy of belief?

...ummmm based on a story about 3500 years ago. While such stories have a basis in fact, I think the years have added some embellishment.

Do animals write history? Do animals tell stories around the campfire for a few thousand years? Short answer: No, they do not. Is the Bible or any ancient text an accurate portrait of history? No, for several reasons. Is it okay to doubt its stories? Yes, it is. Is it okay to say it's completely wrong or a fabrication? No, it is not.

 

[tayla]

...ummmm based on a story about 3500 years ago.

You asked for examples. I didn't invent this religion.

 

[gnostic]

I am referring primarily to the philosophy of science which depends on epistemology and metaphysics; even ontology.

Look, dmap.

I understand what you are saying about "philosophy of science", like with epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, and so on.

They all did contribute to science and various stages in history, and we did get some more ideas to make science, objective.

But today, science has moved away from all philosophies.

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.

In the last decade or so, I have come to the conclusion that philosophy, all philosophies, include those so called "philosophy of science", do nothing but talk on pointless things, which have no real values, other than to hear egotistic philosophies rant the importance of their schools of thoughts.

I don't consider myself a scientist, but my background in civil engineer and later in computer science, do require me to have some areas of knowledge of physics and mathematics, have taught me the values of science that have real world application.

In these two courses, civil and computer, I did not do a single lecture on philosophy, because 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.

I think people who focused too much on philosophy, cannot see the big or little pictures, because they are too focus on the abstract values of their own schools, while they ignore reality and nature itself.

Today philosophers are nothing more than pompous armchair-sitting jack-a55es, especially those metaphysicians.

As you can see, I don't like metaphysics, because it is now useless, overrated and outdated philosophy.