Some scientists disregard philosophy as a distant or confusing discipline or way of thinking. But others have a different view.
“Heisenberg would have never done quantum mechanics without being full of philosophy”, writes the physicist Carlo Rovelli (in Brockman, J. (ed.): The Universe, 2014). “Einstein would have never done relativity without having read all the philosophers (…) Galileo would never have done what he did without having a head full of Plato. Newton thought of himself as a philosopher and started by discussing this with Descartes and had strong philosophical ideas”.
According to this author, the sharp divorce between philosophers and physicists has been mainly a trend of the second half of the twentieth century. It was possible, he says, because during the first half people like Einstein and Heisenberg did a terrific conceptual work. Since then, what has followed is basically an application of their great ideas.
Scientific research involves specific procedures and methods –observation, hypothesis, experimentation, inference and the like. Scientists also hold certain worldviews or substantive conceptions of reality –not only related to space, time and matter, but also about life, mind, behavior, society and history. They put into practice their procedures within the framework of this worldview. It can be argued that all this –the particular methodology and conceptual views that a scientist employs -- implies a philosophy.
These arguments are not new. In the fifties, the physicist Max Jammer showed in a couple of books how philosophy had served as inspiration for basic physical notions such as space and force. He held that philosophy has heuristic value for science and that science relies upon philosophical assumptions.
The doctrine of “philosophical neutrality of science”, wrote Jammer, presuppose that science and philosophy are completely different and independent disciplines (in Radnitzky, G. and Anderson, G. (eds.): The Structure and Development of Science, 1979). Erwin Schrödinger, in particular, maintained that topics like “indeterminacy” or “expanding universe” had little relation with a philosophical conception of the world. Jammer thought that this vision was a philosophical –or at least a meta-scientific-- assertion in itself.
If science is not philosophically aseptic, it follows that many scientists take for granted the particular philosophical approach they are using –as an obvious or natural viewpoint- and are not aware that other possibilities –methodological or substantive- may exist.
In applied science, we can go ahead with conventional tools and ideas. But if we have to go back to the basics, especially looking for innovations that need a change in our way of thinking about the world, the lack of a philosophical background may be a serious disadvantage. The ideas we take for granted work as prejudices –as “epistemological obstacles”, in Gaston Bachelard’s words-- that hinder innovation. Philosophical thinking may be the central route to free us from them and inspire new insights.
What are your ideas? Do you think that philosophy could help you to find new approaches or produce innovations in your area?
Dear José,
definitvely yes!! Philosophy helps to find new approaches for innovations. Philosophical thinking and logic opens the brain for new thinking directions. I had that experience finding unconventional aspects and methodes for teaching. The context of interlinking hand and brain for learning and teaching is one example for me.
Peter
Dear José,
definitvely yes!! Philosophy helps to find new approaches for innovations. Philosophical thinking and logic opens the brain for new thinking directions. I had that experience finding unconventional aspects and methodes for teaching. The context of interlinking hand and brain for learning and teaching is one example for me.
Peter
..the connection between philosophy and science is mutual and characterised by their ever deepening interaction.
Some people think that science has reached such a level of theoretical thought that it no longer needs philosophy. But any scientist, particularly the theoretician, knows in his heart that his creative activity is closely linked with philosophy and that without serious knowledge of philosophical culture the results of that activity cannot become theoretically effective. All the outstanding theoreticians have themselves been guided by philosophical thought and tried to inspire their pupils with its beneficent influence in order to make them specialists capable of comprehensively and critically analysing all the principles and systems known to science, discovering their internal contradictions and overcoming them by means of new concepts. Real scientists, and by this we usually mean scientists with a powerful theoretical grasp, have never turned their backs on philosophy. Truly scientific thought is philosophical to the core, just as truly philosophical thought is profoundly scientific, rooted in the sum-total of scientific achievements Philosophical training gives the scientist a breadth and penetration, a wider scope in posing and resolving problems. Sometimes these qualities are brilliantly expressed, as in the work of Marx, particularly in hisCapital, or in Einstein's wide-ranging natural scientific conceptions.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s04.html
Yes it is as highlighted by other researchers above. Perhaps, new philosophies could emerge to support new scientific inquiry.
Many thanks,
Debra
Dear Jose,
Clearly, philosophy may sufficiently enrich social and humanitarian sciences, especially in their methodological approaches. For example, I can not imagine any historical discipline without phenomenological or hermeneutic approach, as well as without positivistic factual inquiry. If You are strong in philosophy, You may be surely strong in concrete social sciences subject. It is rarely the opposite direction, but also possible. In Eastern European countries even Marxist methodology some decades ago helped somehow to analyze and interpret historical facts or make sociological judgements. May be sometimes wrong, but anyway - explanatory.
On the most basic level: I have always regarded 'science' and 'philosophy' as branches from the same root. Knowledge/wisdom. After all, scientia in Latin is very basically 'knowledge', and φιλοσοφία, philosophia, in Greek is 'love of wisdom'. Originally, at least, the two must have been seen as intertwined disciplines. I suppose that their entwinement goes back before Aristotle to the pre-Socratic philosophers, with their thinking originally untrammelled by centuries of division and even, in some periods, persecution - whether of scientists or of philosophers.
Philosophy is digging into the nutt and bolts of each science as it answers to the question What is ? the nature of the specific science what is its inner structure.. and so on.
Philosophy can be refered to as "Speculating" on a subject in the broad sense of the word.
Dear Jose and all,
Indeed philosophy is an indispensable discipline that ignites the power of reasoning and imagination of some one to travel in to the infinitely vast expanse of possibilities of imagination and think what might be possible and be established or what might exist from purely philosophical point of view. It is not people in philosophy that innovates and creates new theories but scientists who become philosophical in their discourse and habits to imagine beyond what is known and established. The examples provided by dear Jose are quite interesting to this side of the argument.
I have just read two articles relevant to the present question and would like to introduce those articles to you. One is Freeman Dyson's 'What can you really know?' on pages 235–246 of "Dreams of Earth and Sky" (New York Review of Books, New York, 2015). The other is Davide Castelvecchi's 'Feuding physicists turn to philosophy for help' in the journal "Nature" Vol. 528, pages 446–447 (24 December 2015) (available online at http://www.nature.com/news/feuding-physicists-turn-to-philosophy-for-help-1.19076).
In the first article, Dyson reviews Jim Holt's book "Why Does the World Exist: An Existential Detective Story" (Liveright, New York, 2012). In this book Holt reports leading philosophers' reactions to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Dyson compares modern philosophers with philosophers of earlier days and write as follows:
"For most of the twenty-five centuries since written history began, philosophers were important. Two groups of philosophers, Confucius and Lao Tse in China and Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in Greece, were dominant figures in the cultures of Asia and Europe for two thousand years. […]
"In more recent centuries, philosophers were still leaders of human destiny. Descartes and Montesquieu in France, Spinoza in Holland, Hobbes and Lock in England, Hegel and Nietzsche in Germany, set their stamp on the divergent styles of nations as nationalism became the driving force in the history of Europe. […]
"Holt's philosophers belong to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Compared with the giants of the past, they are a sorry bunch of dwarfs. They are thinking deep thoughts and giving scholarly lectures to academic audiences, but hardly anybody in the world outside is listening. They are historically insignificant. […]"
In these passages Dyson does not directly refer to the relationship between philosophy and science, but what is written here seems to reflect the weakening of this relationship. Neither does Dyson writes directly about his feeling for this weakening relationship, but I read his deploring from among his sentences.
The second article is a report of the workshop "Why Trust a Theory? Reconsidering Scientific Methodology in Light of Modern Physics," held at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in Germany from 7 to 9 December, 2015. In this workshop, some of the feuding physicists met with philosophers of science for help about the problem "Are string theory and multiverse cosmology science?" on which physicists and cosmologists have been debating for the past decade. The report concludes with the following passage:
"At the end of the workshop, the feuding physicists did not seem any closer to agreement. Dawid — who co-organized the event with Silk [2], Ellis [3] and others — says that he does not expect people to change their positions in a fundamental way. But he hopes that exposure to other lines of reasoning might “result in slight rapprochement”. Ellis suggests that a more immersive format, such as a two-week summer school, might be more successful at producing a consensus."
In this workshop philosophy does not seem to have given much help yet to physicists and cosmologists, but there remains a hope for future success. The fact that this workshop was held is considered to suggest the necessity of philosophy in the development of the forefront of basic science at least.
Notes
[1] Philosopher Richard Dawid of Ludwig Maximilian University. He wrote the book "String Theory and the Scientific Method" (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2013).
[2] Astronomer Joseph Silk [of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
[3] Cosmologist George Ellis of the University of Cape Town in South Africa.
Notes added later: I was forgetting that Dyson's article included the following passage near its end. Here he rather explicitly laments the decline of philosophy in modern days.
"When and why did philosophy lose its bite? How did it become a toothless relic of past glories? These are the ugly questions that Holt's book compels us to ask. Philosophers became insignificant when philosophy became a separate academic discipline, distinct from science and history and literature and religion. …"
I majored in both philosophy and psychology. One of my teachers earned his PhD from Ludwig Wittgenstein. In graduate school I hung out with a guy the NYT now calls the leading philosopher in the country. My first publication was a philosophical article.
Philosophy is totally non empirical. It can help scientists analyze concepts but for the most part it has little to do with science. Psychologists who invoke philosophy of science to defend their convoluted theories generally have no idea what they are talking about.
At the International Conference on Atomic Collision in Solids held in 1987 in Okayama, Japan, I saw Jens Lindhard, who had worked together with Niels Bohr. I asked Lindhard to tell me one of anecdotes of Bohr. Lindhard told this short story: 'Bohr used to say, "Philosophers did nothing, but I did a great thing." '
This story might be interpreted to mean the following: Bohr's principle of complementarity in quantum mechanics had also effects on other fields including philosophy. On the other hand, physics of the era of quantum mechanics, according to Bohr's thought, had gotten nothing from philosophy, physicists having gone further into the region where philosophers cannot reach. However, I am not sure if Bohr heartily thought so.
Yes of course, each one have a PhD is so a doctor of philosophy. This means the closest relationships between Science and philosophy. Philosophy is a science spark to develop.
Yes, indeed. Distinction between Science and Philosophy only started in 19 Century. At present a philosopher may not be a scientist but a scientist is more likely to be a philosopher too. In the discussion above several examples of distinguish scientists are given. Burtrend Russell, S. Hawkins, A.P.J. Kalam and many others can be cited. For my personal experience, I am inspired by philosophy.
Yes i strongly believe that strong philosophy behind any hypothesis will be the foundation of any scientific development. Infact , science and philosophy are two strong pillars to complement each other.
Dear José Eduardo Jorge,
Yes, yes, unquestionably, the philosophy has been able to help before, can now, and it will be able to help to renew and to develop scientific theory. For both they exist in symbiosis in the brain of every person dealing with something however important to be as développé scientific theory, everywhere, male or female, of any kind of religion, in every field of life, any sex at any age level thatIt is likely to handle such work.
Margaret Ward has written: "On The Most basic level, I have always regarded 'science' and 'philosophy' or branches from the Same Root. Knowledge / wisdom. After all, scientia in Latin is very Basically 'knowledge', and φιλοσοφία, philosophia, in Greek is "love of wisdom".
There are examples everywhere in every step you take.
Please understand not all dealing with these types of work may or become philosophers or scientists, but most know to use and receive results, giving further support scientific development, as one of the main factors in the development of sustainable socio-economic development and the protection Environment, where he lives, to school, work etc ...
The scientific method cannot avoid the need to presuppose certain philosophical assumptions. For example, science requires various forms of deductive, inductive, abductive, statistical and causal reasoning for its explanations. However, the justification of these methods of reasoning which are assumed by science is philosophical rather than scientific.
Dear José,
Dear All,
Your thread recalls an old discussion on the relationship between philosophy and science.
One can ask whether scientia est ancilla philosophiae or philosophia est ancilla scientiae? However, the real trouble is when scientists have no idea on philosophy. Peter’s comment is an almost perfect approach. One should add that human life without philosophical foundation may be but an irrational and erroneous intermezzo.
Here you can find some relevant issues:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_a_PhD_a_PhD
Philosophy of science is needed but it has not a definite place within science for the moment, which is positive because it gives a certain freedom but also dangerous as people have to go back many years to find the substantial of some religion.
We lost a bit the efforts of the quantum scientists. As told in the introduction; from the second half of the 20th century on, philosophy and science have followed an independent road. Now that we want to bring these paths together we see the gap.
Many terms of science are taken from the philosophical fields, but now they got a total different meaning.
Yes I also think that the philosophical neutrality of science was a misstep because it is connected with moral neutrality which is not possible. We must choose for positive meanings and moral good for whole mankind, this way science could have a positive impact on the political landscape and bring some stability between religions.
Can we treat science and philosophy independent of each other and stil expect innovation, probably not possible.
Thales is the first of the ancient philosophers, who called as physicists (except they were ethics and dialectics).
Anaximander imagined that between the natural elements takes struggle, but the universal law of justice returns everything to order. Worlds in his cosmology emerged naturally as a result of chaotic motion of elements.
Empedocles thought that one element is not enough and has offered four from which all are folded like "a wall built of bricks and stones." And there is love and hatred - two forces or elements that control the behavior of others, putting them together and separating. Love and hatred clear physical properties, so it is not just a metaphor. Everything in the world is happening by chance and necessity.
Anaxagoras taught that the Moon like Earth and it has mountains and living beings, and the Sun is a hot stone. In general, Anaxagoras devised the mechanical explanation for everything. As far as known he was an atheist.
Heraclitus came up with the dialectic, which is then developed by Hegel and used by Marx. Everything flows, everything changes - he said, the unity born from opposites, and in the same river can not enter twice.
If Heraclitus believed that the world is changing, there was one who believed that nothing changes at all. His name was Parmenides. He said that the existence of eternal, unchanging, infinite, united, the material world has a spherical shape, and the void does not exist. In addition, he raised the very serious matter of time.
Another person suggested the idea of opposing views of Heraclitus - Democritus. He was atomist and dialectically complemented Heraclitus. In the future, they are often portrayed together: laughing Democritus and weeping Heraclitus. So, everything is made of infinitely many indestructible atoms, which are divided into an infinite number of different types. There is also a space in which they exist.
Plato many inherited from the Pythagoreans. He came up with the ideal world of pure ideas. Mathematics and all the general ideas exist in this world. Plato was not atomist, but he think that everything is made of atoms of a mathematical nature.
Did philosophy help to develop of modern scientific theories or made them all?
Unless one without the other can not exist. This is evident in the responses of all speakers. Even those who try between the words poaiedzieć "no", they use arguments to "yes".
My answer is a definite YES, just look at what Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and what it has brought to the scientific world.
Theorizing and modelling are core activities across the sciences. Whether old (e.g., relativity theory, evolutionary theory) or new (e.g., climate modelling, cognitive science, and systems biology), theory remains essential for developing multipurpose tools, models and procedures. Philosophy is concerned with how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together. It aims at an overall picture of what the world is like and how we fit into it. Philosophy is the way we approach problems that are too elusive to be investigated scientifically, hence philosophical attention to the structure of scientific theories is vital.
Dear José,
Thank you writing very well defined questions with informative introductions.
The examples you provided in your introduction clearly indicates that philosophy has helped many scientists to innovate and develop scientific theory.
However, we shold note that philosogy is not necessary for innovation and discoveries. science and philosophy are different and the most important elements for innovation are deep thinking, a though grasp of knowledge in the related field and creativity.
Differences between Science vs Philosophy are highlighted in the attached link:
Science can be defined as a study and understanding of natural phenomena. It is concerned with empirical data, meaning data that can be observed, tested, and repeated. It is systematic in nature, and there is a specific course of action used called the scientific method. Science bases its explanation on the results of experiments, objective evidence, and observable facts.
philosophy, is a more difficult concept to define. It is broadly defined as an activity that uses reason to explore issues in many areas. Its application to many different fields makes it impossible to have a definite and concrete definition.
Philosophy tries to study and understand the fundamental nature of two things: the existence of man and the relationship between the man and existence.
Philosophy is based on reason. Its methods use logical argumentation. Philosophy uses arguments of principles as basis for its explanation.
Summary:
- Philosophy and science are two studies and domains. Philosophy came first and became the basis for science, formerly known as natural philosophy. Both studies have many branches or fields of study and makes use reasoning, questioning and analysis. The main difference is how they work and treat knowledge.
- Science is concerned with the natural phenomena while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
- Science came from a Latin word (scientia), meanwhile, philosophy traces back to a Greek word (philosophia).
- Another common element between the two studies is that they try to explain situations and find answers. Philosophy does this by using logical argumentation while science uses empirical data. Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles while science tries to explain from experiment results, observable facts and objective evidence.
- Science is used for instances that require empirical validation while philosophy is used for situations where measurements and observations cannot be applied.
- Science also takes answers and proves them as objective right or wrong.
- Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy while only some of objective questions can be related in science. Philosophy also involves generating questions aside from finding answers. Meanwhile, while science is only involved in the latter activity.
- Philosophy creates knowledge by thinking. On the other hand, science does the same thing by observing.
- Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy which can be applied to many and extensive areas of discipline.
source http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/
The development power of imagination is the best feature of this best-creature of nature. This generalizing of imagination of any subject may called as theory, and this theory have to be proved scientifically is human's own duty to justify whether true or untrue.
I think, such type of argument is only time-pass like the nature of religious leaders.
PhD "doctor of philosophy" degree can be attained in nearly all subjects such as chemistry, physics, math, sociology, English, etc. That said, a PhD recipients will not necessarily be expert in the traditional study of philosophy (natural, metaphysical, or moral) but is rather able to engage in the critical study of the basic principles & concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, in well- thought experiments, in reasoning about problems, and in providing solutions in logical sophisticated ways. A PhD holder has to contribute novelty to knowledge with a view to improving or reconstituting it in his/her field. Therefore, a philosophical approach can & should help in the development of sciences.
Our birth is a god given gift .It is the union of MAN & WOMEN resulting our birth since the day light of our MOTHER EARTH .Our identity ,our cast ,creed & religion get
recongised throu our parents.It is the environment of the family & the culture which play a part of our growth & development & with the passage of the time we come out
as a human being with our personal identity .
With this philosophy is the way of our life & it is applicable to every human beings of the world.With our birth we have with us the storage of our resulting fruits
of our action -positive & negative of our previous lives which have been stored in our mind .
Philosophy keep our mind thinking in a right mode also accepting the reality of life & to keep our mind balanced in all the situation so that we may accept the challenge
of the life .
For our scientist a research minded people the practice of philosophy keeps them working with spirit & for their experiment it can help them a guide of inspiration
last but not the least may help them to keep them their mind balance even in case of negative result which may inspired them to start with the experience once again
for their success & in this line they will feel that failures are the peers of success.
This is my personal opinion
In my field of research: animals behavior and conservation, I found philosophy not helpful but essential. Negative opinions are maybe coming from so called "exact" branches of science? Though even mathematics is under discussion to be considered exact.
Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery (from STANFORD)
Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable consequences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex because the term “discovery” has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the outcome and to the procedure of inquiry. In the narrowest sense, the term “discovery” refers to the purported “eureka moment” of having a new insight. In the broadest sense, “discovery” is a synonym for “successful scientific endeavor” tout court. Some philosophical disputes about the nature of scientific discovery reflect these terminological variations.
Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery arise about the nature of human creativity, specifically about whether the “eureka moment” can be analyzed and about whether there are rules (algorithms, guidelines, or heuristics) according to which such a novel insight can be brought about. Philosophical issues also arise about rational heuristics, about the characteristics of hypotheses worthy of articulation and testing, and, on the meta-level, about the nature and scope of philosophical reflection itself. This essay describes the emergence and development of the philosophical problem of scientific discovery, surveys different philosophical approaches to understanding scientific discovery, and presents the meta-philosophical problems surrounding the debates.
Read the rest of very interesting article at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-discovery/
Dear Behrouz Ahmadi-Nedushan, you're right.
The hypothesis leads to the theory. The attempts of falsification of which are routine process for which philosophy in general is not necessary.
But without "A" there is no "B".
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov, yes, your earlier contribution concerning the pre-Socratic philosophers was exactly what I meant about them.
And let's not forget Anaximenes, or Xenophanes and his concept of the universe as spherical - and Zeno with his paradoxes and concepts of finity and infinity.
It seems that the source of the conventionalist philosophy is a marvel of simplicity raw beauty of the world, ukazywanym by the laws of physics. Conventionalists feed probably feel that the simplicity of words would be incomprehensible miracle if we as realists have to believe that the laws of nature reveal internal structural simplicity of the world, hiding under the external manifestations of wasteful diversity.
According to konwencjonalistycznym point of view of the laws of nature are not falsifiable by observation; laws are needed in order to determine what is observation, and more specifically what it is in science measurement. That those established by our laws are strictly necessary to regulate the so-called clocks and correct. "Rigid" measuring rods. The clock call "exact" and a measuring rod "rigid" only when traffic measured by these instruments meet the axioms of mechanics, which decided to accept. The way in which the conventionalist philosophy has helped to clarify the relationship taking place between theory and experiment, deserves recognition. They recognized for the important role, rarely noticed by indukcjonistów play in conducting scientific experiments and interpret our own actions and operations, scheduled in accordance with accepted conventions and deductive reasoning. I conventionalism too tight and a good system. It is unlikely that managed to detect in it a contradiction. Despite this, however, I believe that it is impossible to accept it. At the core of conventionalism it is completely different from my conception of science, its goals and objectives. While I do not expect from science final confirmation (and consequently do not have it), conventionalism looks for learning "system of knowledge based on the grounds for the final" - in the words of Dingler. This goal is unattainable, because each one scientific system with which we are dealing You can be interpreted as a system of definitions involved. Periods of slow development of science does not result in frequent conflict situations - apart from disputes purely academic - between scientists which encourage toward conventionalism and supporters of view similar to the position I defended. Quite different happens in times of crisis. The system recognized in a certain period as a "classic," and today threatened with results of new experiments, which according to my point of view, can be recognized as a falsification, for the conventionalist will remain unthreatened. The conventionalist cope with all the emerging contradictions, probably throwing the blame on insufficient efficiency in the use of the system. Or they get rid of them shoving an ad hoc some auxiliary hypotheses or correcting the measuring instruments.
Hegel called philosophy "substantial spirit of the epoch".Love to wisdom."The system of idea's evolution".To Comte,"the main aim is the ability to rational prediction".To Nietzsche,"What is the aim of the philosophy of the future?-Revaluation of values""What is the main function of philosophy?-World view." Dilthey.To Windelband, "The subject of philosophy is values".To Russell,"Philosophy is both an effect and a cause of social circumstances". it is a bridge between the existence and being.Windelband compared philosophy with the position of King Lear:"Where was I?-Where am I now?"Philosophy is in crisis,choosing the future.The spirit of mercantilism and pragmatism can't create the favourable environment for progress of philosophy.To Spengler,"Nature should be interpreted rigorously,history should be put into verses."If there is a philosophers'stone and it's hidden in any place,this place is nature,which contains in itself its own foundation.As for Die sittliche welt..."Absence of action is innocent or being of the stone(Das sein eines Steines),but not being of a child"Nietzsche.
It is an interesting discussion.https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection
Science and Philosophy is not distinct. As we are more and more specialized in the area of our research we do not think that we need any philosophical background for our research work. But if we question how innovative ideas come in mind? What is the Biochemical pathway behind such a innovation? How biochemical process can be explain more deeper on the basis of Physics and how such a phenomenon can be expressed in Mathematical expression then we find that there is certainly big errors in whole dataset of knowledge what we called "Science". Our emotion and our behaviors need to be explain by Biology and Biology should be explain on the basis of chemistry and chemistry further explained by Physics and All physical phenomenon should be further explain by mathematics. Is it possible ? if not it means Science need philosophy always.
I came across a journal called International Journal of Management Concepts and Philosophy which has coverage on
http://www.inderscience.com/jhome.php?jcode=ijmcp
The philosopher Karl Popper explained the evolution from Newton mechanics to relativity theory of Einstein, as an example of falsification, i.e. refutation of errors. In particular, the formulas for speed around the speed of light should be altered.
The philosopher Karl Popper explained the evolution from Newton mechanics to relativity theory of Einstein, as an example of falsification, i.e. refutation of errors. In particular, the formulas for speed around the speed of light should be altered.
The philosopher Karl Popper explained the evolution from Newton mechanics to relativity theory of Einstein, as an example of falsification, i.e. refutation of errors. In particular, the formulas for speed around the speed of light should be altered.
Science is much more than data collection. As soon as you move away from pure data you are moving into the realm of philosophy (no longer strictly empirical). On the other hand, philosophy without science will have difficulty focussing on what matters. Speculation is too open-ended without the control (constraint) of data.
The philosopher Karl Popper explained the evolution from Newton mechanics to relativity theory of Einstein, as an example of falsification, i.e. refutation of errors. In particular, the formulas for speed around the speed of light should be altered.
Dear All,
The relation between science and philosophy becomes very clear when devoting our attention to subjectivity and objectivity. Hence, when trying to capture what makes subjective experience of objects possible. Of course, science can support us by provide descriptions of the objects and thus operationalise objects to predict future effects if sufficiently manipulated with. But while doing so, science does coat us in the assumption that the only possible way to perceive our world is the scientific way. This is - as history has proven - not a bad way at all as it turned out to be rather successful (although there are reasons for doubt as well). But as science is providing the major way of perceiving everything and anything in this scientific way, we seem to leave the fact totally out of focus that every scientifically verified observation is one that has to be made - in one way or another - by an experiencing subject, making some sort of - individual - sense out of this, individual sense which then - and only in a second step - undergoes the scientific-methodological purification.
That however seems to imply that the necessary pre-condition for any science is the individualised, subjective experience of an object or matters of fact in the first place. But despite this rather bland observation, when it comes to account for the scientific explanation of this feature of individualised experience science remains rather silent. Only recently has science taken up the project of trying to provide explanations of how conscious thought and experience may manifest themselves upon organic matter. But these sort of natural-scientific investigations seem to necessitate the beacon of individual experience as experienced by a subject, something Husserl's philosophical project of phenomenology has - already a hundred years ago - tried to account for.
The fact that any attempt to make Husserl's phenomenological considerations bear fruit within a scientific pursuit would necessitate the re-configuration of the scientific method (allowing for self-observational accounts with a sample-size of n=1) is something that clearly indicates how important philosophy is for the future development of science.
I have written about these problems and you may find the article:
Neurophenomenology – Current Problems and Historical Baggage A review of the CEP Annual Conference on Neurophenomenology
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF CONSCIOUSNESS STUDIES 20(3-4):222-239 · MARCH 2013
which is available here on the Research-Gate helpful.
Best
Tom
Vasiliy Fedorovich Komarov and others, I meant to add that when I learned about the pre-Socratic philosophers and their views on science and mathematics, I appreciated Pythagoras and his theorem/s - but I couldn't understand his stricture to his cult followers, ''Never eat beans.'' Years later, I read that even that had good 'scientific' reason. It was said that favism was caused by eating beans [fava beans].
When I was at high school, my teacher was giving lessons on the pre-Socratic philosophers and told us to watch the original Star Trek series. One of the episodes was based on the Pythagorean 'music of the spheres' and further episodes appeared related to axioms of other Greek philosophers. Yes, Star Trek was pseudo-science, but it got us teenagers interested in the pre-Socratics.
Arts,history,philosophy and other social studies can depend on political dogmas of the mighty.Only free-thinking philosophers can contribute to the future.Nietzsche "Philosophy in the tragic epoch",1875,"Thales,Anaximander,Heraclitus,Parmenides,Anaxagoras,Empedocles,Democritus, and Socrates were called the republic of geniuses"(Schopenhauer).There were no classes of scientists and philosophers.There were only the human beings,who lived only for the sake of knowledge and learning."It was the conversation of the spirits,when one giant was calling to another through the barren space of time".
http://www.nietzsche.ru/works/other/philosof/
Dear Irina,
as much as I like your attempt to merge scientists and philosophers into just one coherent group, aiming to contribute to the enhancement of knowledge, one has to be a bit careful here. By their very nature both attempts to gain knowledge are different, while science has to rely on certain presumptions to get an investigation going, it then considers objects or matters of fact, i.e. is strictly empirical. Philosophy aims - it could be debated in how far it actually succeeds - to be presumption-less in its aims to forward our knowledge in a theoretical, logical (hence: non-empirical) way.
In that respect scientific knowledge can hardly ever exceed the contingent nature of those objects of matters of fact, while philosophy tries to capture universal truth. As I say, one has to be careful and it is up to each and everyone of us to form our own opinion of how far we are convinced by either strand of knowledge-acquisition, but - and that is my point - both are inherently different. And that despite the fact that - in the past - there has not been such a clear distinction.
Best
Tom
Science without Philosophy is exactly next quote:
- "Shut up and calculate!" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation )
No, we don't want to shut up!
PS As wikipedia writes:
"While this slogan is sometimes attributed to Paul Dirac[62] or Richard Feynman, it seems to be due to David Mermin"
When I look at a problem, then I see x ways of perceiving the problem of which some are better - to find these I need philosophy.
When I begin to compute in some perspective, then I get results that affect my earlier perspective and the entire picture improves... becomes more focused or expands.
Actually it is not that simple , because what people call 'philosophy' is science that has some level of tolerance of generalities and sometimes vagueness.
I use lot of hard philosophy in mathematics, but do I know where the boundaries are?
It depends on perspective and I like changing them.
Starnberg leading school of thoughts accepts the impact of social aims and needs on science, and availability of subjective moments in it.Philosophy is both a "scientific world view(rational-emotional) and a universal methodology".O.Mitroshenkov
http://society.polbu.ru/mitroshenkov_philosophy/ch05_all.html
Dear Jose
I think it is very important that science take a rethink on Philosphy which may be more scientific than thought of, and it is time that they did this
Narayanan
Descartes works
The "Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa Raison et chercher la Vérité dans les Sciences" ("Discourse on the Method") of 1637, his first rationalist vision of the progress of human knowledge; the "Meditationes de Prima Philosophia" ("Meditations on First Philosophy") of 1641, a more formal exposition of his central tenets, in Latin; and the "Principia Philosophiae" ("Principles of Philosophy") of 1644, an even more systematic and comprehensive exposition of his views. For a time, in 1643, Cartesian philosophy was condemned by the University of Utrecht.
http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_descartes.html
Dear Krishnan,
without a shadow of a doubt does Descartes work. But while the Cartesian way of doing science works very well, one has to bear in mind, that it works on the fundamental differentiation between the res extansa and the res cogitans, introduced by him. Descartes works predominantly on the res extansa and - quite universally acknowledged - his attempts to somehow link the workings of the mind to that of the body have failed because of a number or logical inconsistencies.
Hence, Descartes has given us a scientific way (see my earlier contribution) of perceiving and explaining the world, but this only works on the tacit presumption that there are (minded) humans (possessing a res cogitans) that actually have a world, one for which the Cartesian model cannot account. Individually constituted worlds remain inaccessible to the Cartesian account.
But it that is so, than Cartesian science - or any science in that tradition - cannot claim to provide a universal description of the world anymore, as it - inherently - always ignores the individual access to the world. And if that is so, then the scientific picture of the world remains invariably incomplete.
I am sorry about having to break the news so bluntly, but engaging with Cartesian philosophy probably requires a little bit more than reading philosophybasics?
Many of the present physicists seem to detach themselves from philosophers. A typical example is the Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg. We can know this from his latest book "To Explain the World: the Discovery of Modern Science" (Allen Lane/Harper Collins, 2015). Though I have not read it yet, I have found the following passages in the review of this book by Paul Montgomery (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/2015/jun/18/the-cradle-of-modern-science):
"[…], there is a stark contrast between Weinberg's evident suspicion of philosophers (he does not appear to appreciate the philosophy of Bacon, Descartes or Kuhn much at all) and his obvious desire to contribute to the philosophy of science by putting forward his own arguments for realism and reductionism.
"[…]
"In some ways, Weinberg's desire to keep philosophy at a respectable distance is understandable. There are two major reasons for this. The first is the difficulty scientists have in getting a handle on the philosophy of science as a subject. To remedy this difficulty, I would recommend having Mel Thompson's very accessible "Introduction to the Philosophy of Science" (2001 Hodder Headline) at hand when reading "To Explain the World" in order to help judge what Weinberg is saying. The second, more fundamental, reason for keeping philosophy at arm's length is due to the attacks on science made by adherents of social constructivism. The Sokal–Bricmont affair of the mid-1990s [dubbed the "Science Wars"], in which Weinberg was involved, illustrates well the disturbing gulf that still exists today between science and some strands of philosophy."
In the last paragraph of his review, Montgomery writes the possible effectiveness of cooperation between physicists and philosophers as follows:
"[…], instead of skirting round the battlefield, Weinberg could take us into it, equipped with the sort of weapons that philosophers understand and respect, to defend science against relativism in hand-to-hand combat. And, on the way, by raising again questions about the basis of science, radical progress might be made in such fields as reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity – just as Kuhn observed often happens before a paradigm change."
I agree with Montgomery about such cooperation.
Dear Jae/All,
"The foundation of scientific work is based on the conviction,that the world represents a well-organized and knowable entity"Einstein.To V.Klyuchevsky,"A thought without morality is stupidity, morality without a thought is fanaticism".Thus,Marxist-Leninists claimed that" Marx,Engels,Lenin only had given scientific character to philosophy.To them,other philosophical systems were prescientific.Pre-Marxist and non-Marxist philosophy were considered unscientific and pseudoscientific,because they hadn't represented the interests of the progressive class-proletariat". To me,every authoritarianism is unacceptable in the scientific ideology.Thus Feyerabend in his conception of "philosophical anarchism" set up a principle of "proliferation"as a necessary condition for science advancement.To A.Gritzianov,"this conception is contributed to epistemology,besides the socio-cultural analysis of knowledge-anthropology of knowledge (Mendelson,Elcana) is based on the commensurability of knowledge with human abilities and needs". Philosophy is a science of arche and prime cause,it's an intellectual tool.On the other hand,exact sciences have a hypothetical character ,too,as well as the categorial framework in natural science is far from perfection.A father of psychology was greatest philosopher Aristotle.Psychology is based on learning of a human being, and philosophy is a system of views on the worl and a human being.General psychology is philosophy plus psychology.
http://xwap.me/books/9383/Filosofiya.html?p=13
Dear all,
I am not quite sure what is going on here, maybe someone can enlighten me?
Reading through various contributions it appears that somehow - partially half-heartedly, partially implicit - some of you seem to argue for the fact that science and philosophy are basically not so far apart and that therefore science would not need to feel threatened by philosophy.
I do not know - I might be mistaken here - but that seems to be the upshot of - at least - some of the answers so far.
Of course, and I am the first one to admit this, both practices (science and philosophy) are forms of acquiring knowledge. In that respect they are probably as similar as beef and apples are: they can both be eaten!
But - and that is the danger I see - if we somehow level out the difference between science and philosophy, if we kind of treat it as more or less the same, then we have already provided a negative answer to Jose Eduardo's question (Can philosophy help to innovate and develop scientific theory?). If - following these attempts to make the fundamental difference between science and philosophy go away - science and philosophy would thus be the same. Philosophy would be nothing but science and science more or less the same a philosophy.
But if such an equalising effort would be granted, it would be difficult to explain where the innovative powers of philosophy would need to be found, as (qua being the same) philosophy would basically draw on the same conceptual resources as science. So without going on about potential benefits that philosophical thought may (or may not) bring to scientific theory (I wrote earlier about the potential incompleteness of the 'scientific world-view'), it appears as if any attempt to equalise both disciplines has already ruled out any discussion about - potential - benefits that philosophy could bring to the table. Any such contribution could only come from outside science and not from within (see: Kurt Goedel incompleteness theorem- if you must) itself.
If this line of argument is accepted then the equalising attempts will not do any argumentative weight-lifting here, they remain some form of disciplinary appeasement politics to establish a friendly coexistence and by that probably destroy the critical gaze of philosophy when it comes to scientific theory and its developmental potential?
Best
Tom
I think the above criticism on res cogitans and res extensa does not help much albeit it is true that there are today (seemingly better) alternatives to Cartesian philosophy. After all, Cartesian rationalism declined in the 19th century. I wonder whether there is today a perfect philosophy of science, the holy grail. I bet not.
If any, let her/him throw the first stone.
The statement "possessing a res cogitans" in the earlier post could be better articulated. Res cogitans are things (realities) of mind/knowing, a.k.a. mental entities. "Possessing a res extensa" (physical or corporeal entities) would sound even further derailed.
RE: Irina's "General psychology is philosophy plus psychology"
I find the statement really interesting and provocative.
On the one hand, it sounds something terribly wrong, I mean, "general psychology" as a successful reduction of two grand fields, namely philosophy and psychology. Indeed, there are some proponents of such reduction. Paul and Patricia Churchland think that General Psychology can and should be reduced, if not terminated (hence, a.k.a. Eliminatism). In fact, they call general psychology "Folk Psychology." They particularly provoke those psychologists who instead of 'real' science do something more philosophical if not mythical/folk tale narratives. Never mind, Paul and Patricia are radical materialists (I assure you they're in a way more radical than comrade Marx) looking/promoting for total reduction with materialism in science. Please take a look at their work.
On the other hand, I must say, the captioned statement could be closer to my earlier one: All science including empirico-positivistic hard core have a corresponding philosophy of science, hence a world-view cum philosophy on mind on how (best or plausible) knowledge is attained. This is my epikeia-type of interpretation of Irina's interesting statement.
Good night from Hong Kong with sparkling cheers for the New Year !
Dear Jae,
I dare to point out that my usage of the Cartesian substance-dualism was employed in relation to the previously sang praises of Cartesianism, an approach that somehow lost quite a lot of its original charms. In that respect, I guess, our positions are not apart at all?
I think I get your point about the possibility to possess either of these substances and I have to explain that I used this verb as a matter of speech to highlight the one-sidedness of the previously praised Cartesian account. Of course a living being (as we know them) can neither possess a thinking nor an extended substance, as - in order to be such a (living) being - it needs both as a necessary pre-condition, both are the constituents of such a being. Which - I hasten to add - was exactly my point about the inherent incompleteness of Cartesian thought of which the person writing before me appeared to be so fond of - and that despite the -by now- well known problems.
Best
Tom
SEP
.
SEP.
A number of different concepts of consciousness can be distinguished in current research and bridge both science (neuroscience) and philosophy (phenomenolgy):
The issue here is Consciousness.
1. Creature consciousness: Consciousness of an organism as a whole insofar as it is awake and sentient (Rosenthal, 1997).
2) Background consciousness versus state consciousness: Overall states of consciousness, such as being awake, being asleep, dreaming, being under hypnosis, and so on , versus specific conscious mental states individuated by their contents (Rosenthal, 1997; Chalmers, 2000).The coarsest grained state of background consciousness is sometimes taken to be creature consciousness (Chalmers, 2000).
3. Transitive consciousness versus intransitive consciousness: Object-directed consciousness (consciousness-of), versus non-object-directed consciousness (Rosenthal, 1997).
4. Access consciousness: Mental states whose contents are accessible to thought and verbal report (Block, 2001). According to one important theory, mental contents are access-conscious when they are ‘globally available’ inthe brain as contents of a ‘global neuronal workspace’ (Dehaene and Naccache, 2001; Baars, 2002).
5. Phenomenal consciousness: Mental states that have a subjective experiential character (there is something ‘it is like’ for the subject to be in such a state) (Nagel, 1979; Block 2001).
6. Introspective consciousness: Meta-awareness of a conscious state (usually understood as a particular form of access consciousness) (Jack and Shallice,2001; Schooler, 2002).
7. Pre-reflective self-consciousness: Primitive self-consciousness; self-referential awareness of subjective experience that does not require active reflection or introspection (Wider, 1997; Williams, 1998; Gupta, 1998; Zahavi, 1999).
A great deal of debate has centered on (4) and (5):Some theorists argue that it is possible for there to be phenomenally conscious contents that are inaccessible to thought, the rational control of action and verbal report (Block, 2001); others argue this notion of consciousness is incoherent, and hence deny the validity of the access/phenomenal distinction (Dennett, 2001).
This debate looks somewhat different when seen from a Phenomenological perspective. Central to this tradition, and to certain Asian phenomenology (Gupta, 1998; Williams, 1998), are the notions of intentionality (which is related to (3) above) and pre-reflective self-consciousness (7). Pre-reflective self-consciousness is a primitive form of self-awareness believed to belong inherently to any conscious experience: Any experience, in addition to intending (referring to) its intentional object (transitive consciousness), is reflexively manifest to itself (intransitive consciousness).
Such self-manifesting awareness is a primitive form of self-consciousness in the sense that (i) it does not require any subsequent act of reflection or introspection but occurs simultaneously with awareness of the object; (ii) does not consist in forming a belief or making a judgment; and (iii) is ‘passive’ in the sense of being spontaneous and involuntary (seeZahavi and Parnas, 1998).
A distinction is thus drawn between the ‘noetic’ process of experiencing, and the ‘noematic’ object or content of experience. Expeitself as process (noesis). For instance, when one consciously sees an object, one is also at the same time aware — intransitively, pre-reflectively and passively — of one’s seeing; when one visualizes a mental image, one is thus aware also of one’s visualizing. This tacit self-awareness has often been explicated as involving a form of non-objective bodily self-awareness — a reflexive awareness of one’s ‘lived body’ or embodied subjectivity correlative to experience of the object (Merleau-Ponty, 1962; Wider, 1997; Zahavi, 2002). Hence from a neuro-phenomenological perspective, any convincing theory of consciousness must account for this pre-reflective experience of embodied subjectivity, in addition to the object-related contents of consciousness (Varela et al., 1991; Thompson and Varela, 2001; Zahavi, 2002).
Neurophenomenology thus corroborates the view, articulated by Panksepp , that neuroscience needs to explain both ‘how the brain engenders the mental patterns we experience as the images of an object’ (the noema in Phenomenological terms), and ‘how, in parallel . . . the brain also creates a sense of self in the act of knowing . . . how each of us has a sense of “me” . . . how we sense that the images in our minds are shaped in our particular perspective and belong to our individual organism’.
In Phenomenological terms, this second issue concerns the noetic side of consciousness, in particular the noetic aspect of ‘ipseity’ or the minimal subjective sense of ‘I-ness’ in experience, which is constitutive of a ‘minimal’ or ‘core self’, as contrasted with a ‘narrative’ or ‘autobiographical self’ (Gallagher, 2000). As a number of cognitive scientists have emphasized, this primitive self-consciousness is fundamentally linked to bodily processes of life regulation, emotion and affect, such that all cognition and intentional action are emotive and a theme central to Phenomenology This viewpoint bears on the access/phenomenal-consciousness debate as follows. According to Phenomenology, ‘lived experience’ comprises pre-verbal, pre-reflective and affectively valenced mental states (events, processes), which, while not immediately available or accessible to thought, introspection and verbal report, are intransitively ‘lived through’ subjectively, and thus have an experiential or phenomenal character. Such states, however, are (i) necessarily primitively self-aware, otherwise they do not qualify as conscious (in any sense); and (ii) because of their being thus self-aware, are access conscious in principle, in that they are the kind of states that can become available to thought, reflective awareness, introspection and verbal report, especially through first-person methods.
In summary, whereas many theorists currently debate the access/phenomenal consciousness distinction in largely static terms, neurophenomenology proposes to reorient the theoretical framework by emphasizing the dynamics of the whole noetic-noematic structure of consciousness, including the structural and temporal dynamics of Science involves not simply awareness of its object (noema), but tacit awareness of the process of becoming reflectively or introspectively aware of experience, such that implicit and intransitively ‘lived through’ aspects of pre-reflective experience can become in a verbose manner described.
Yes every kind of new insight translated into a language that is understood, brings us together. We need to find a common denominator. Thank you for saying it in so beautiful words.
Back to Descartes and side-tracking the question, if I may: nobody has ever convinced me of the proof of Je pense, donc je suis. I was questioning this when aged 16, and still am. A thought lasts but a moment and is gone. Can we prove that we are thinking? What if this is all some sort of dream?
Dear All, but especially Margret and Constantine,
Margret you are right with your suspicion, as the I think, therefore I am, implies the I or ego as a tacit and thus unchallenged precondition. I.e. in order to make such a statement valid, one has to accept that there is an I or ego, but if that is so, then the argumentative figure I think, therefore I am fails to establish what it sat out to do.
Constantine, thanks for your comprehensive account, plowing through the enormous field of the science - phenomenology interplay. However, the point of your deliberations in terms of Jose Eduardo's question seems to be that the neurophenomenological proposal of Varela challenges the notion of the current scientific conduct when it comes to attempts to provide a scientific description of consciousness.
And that is something that needs - from my point of view - a little bit stronger explication: Varela is founding his proposal upon the utilisation of philosophical (Husserl's phenomenological) methods (the epoch). Varela thus provides a prime example how philosophical thought is able to challenge the current scientific paradigm and how it offers a proposal for a solution aiming to overcome the so revealed limitations of the scientific conduct.
And - at the end of the day - that was - if I am not mistaken - Jose Eduardo's question?
Have a good New Year, all of you
Tom
Dear Tom
Thanks for your appreciation , Indeed the pit is bottom-less we have only scratched the surface.
Best wishes for the New Year
Constantine.
I thank everyone for the detailed and enlightening answers. We have been discussing in other threads the apparent divisions between scientists and humanists and the possible bridges that are being built --or could be built-- between them. I think the relationships between philosophy and science are a particular case --especially productive for both disciplines-- of such potential bridges. I assume that philosophy and science are different areas of knowledge, but they have a common border, which is crossed regularly from both sides.
Happy New Year to all of you !!
I dare add some maxims,which are actual now.
Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis.
Delenda est Carthago!
Amor sceletarus habendi.Ovidius
Fascism as "philosophy in psychoanalysis"(Russell) is destructive.
Tacitus: Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant (they make a desert and call it peace)
Idque apud imperios humanitas vocabatur,cum pars servitutis esset.
Peccant reges,plectuntur Achivi.
Cato:Sermo datur cunctis,animi sapientia paucis.
Seditio civium hostium est occasio.
Nec Caesar supra grammaticos
Docto homini et erudito vivere est cogitare.
Errare,mehercule,malo cum Platone,quam cum istis vera sentire.
R.Shackley:In the information war those always loses,who tells the truth.Those,who tells the truth,is always limited by the truth.Those,who tells the lie,can tell anything one likes.
George Orwell:In time of total lie to tell the truth is extremism.
Inter vepres rosae nascuntur.
Qui proficit in litteris,sed deficit in moribus,plus deficit,quam proficit (!)
Dear Jose,I agree,that only humanism is the source of progress,wisdom,peace,integrity,universality."The power of culture to create a better future"(UN)
Sol lucet omnibus!(Petronium).Happy New Year!
Margaret, I also found Descartes' 'thinking' here and elsewhere quite faulty and agree if accepted could lead counterintuitively to a dream conclusion. Descartes later modified his statement to dubito ergo sum, but still the dream counterargument remains. Whether a dream or not, my first reaction was that a lot of things neither think or doubt (or dream), yet do exist, e.g., a rock, etc., rendering Descartes' statement simply a non sequitur.
I held off on this one to see what the range of thoughts would be. My guess is that most scientists, at least until recently, just got on with what was in front of their noses, using what they assumed was a "scientific method". I think that the real distinction here is between those who have an explicit philosophy and tell us what it is, and those who operate on an implicit philosophy (and may, without realising it, have contradictory propositions in their heads). There is (or are) philosophy (ies) of science, and I only started using any when my own research was exposed to me as part of a "degenerating research programme" after listening to Imre Lakatos.
A lot of the comments seem to home in on the mind-body problem. I agree with Jorge and Irina that humanism matters. Anybody read Raymond Tallis: Aping Mankind? It is heavy going, but does attack the very reductionist approach common in neuroscience.
Science is an offshoot of philosophy. In the past, several evolutionary theories were put forwarded by philosophers. Science looks for the empirical truth, whereas philosophy looks for methaphysical, moral and empirical truths. The way scientific pursuits approach a subject unconsciously or consciously are the modern way of expressing philosophy itself. Philosophy and science can differ in the content of their questions in the methodologies to find the truth. Science relies upon the experimental method whereas philosophy relies only upon the reasoning. Science and philosophy both complement each other. This aspect was deliberated at length on RG, pl refer following thread -
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection/7
Dear Cj,
as much as I agree with the claimed flaws in terms of Descartes argument, it does not really matter if you make this claim in relation to cognition overall or in relation to the sub-set of cognitively mediated doubts - it still remains the same. This cognising or doubting cognition is supposed to make the point for the res cogitans.
When you then - in a second step - try to make the point that a lot of things do indeed exist without any thinking or doubting, you seem to be on to something that either a) just escapes my ability to get your point or b) might indicate that the thrust of Descartes' thought experiment for the existence of two separate substances has not been intellectually digested sufficiently?
Nevertheless, best wishes
Tom
Dear Nizar Matar,
Dear All,
I am afraid that most PhD holders are far from being experts in the traditional or any study of philosophy. It is difficult to assess which philosophical field are most far from their mind or soul. I think, the morality must be their weakest side as many of them take part – for some decorations and money - in destroying the biosphere and human life.
Dear Cj, Tom and others,
My personal feeling [rather than philosophy?] is that science cannot, for me, prove the existence of anything - including thought. But then again, philosophy cannot prove what is real and what is unreal [eg a dream], either.
To my opinion the difference between science and philosophy is the difference between how and why. It means everybody in his or her life will encounter with these two conceptions. Some people will not show eagerness to why, but actually they accepted the why, that is they know that everything has its wHines, so they try to discover or explore for scientific projects. Philosophers too, by watching the result of scientific projects try to find a common reason for things and actions.
Actually, the way of looking at the world of reality and all it's phenomena may change our way of researching in scientific area.
This may be treated in another way, that is experience and reason are intertwined. It means when we experience something the reason is present and shows itself by differentiating the results and when philosopher thinks about The things, he or she basically regards the experience.
Without philosophy there is no science, management, even mathematics also.
Philosophy is origination and networking of thoughts.
It contains school of thoughts. Without these school of thoughts no one can achieve innovation.
Philosophy of physics, philosophy of management etc...
Any scientific theory starts with 'thought' then will be formed in to Hypothesis, then converts in to theory finally subjected to experiment. So philosophy is must for innovation.
Even experimental scientists also think and plan their experiments based on their vision or interaction (may be sudden) based on their basic philosophy of the subject.
In my opinion a scientist must be a philosopher before being a scientist.
In one night nobody can become a scientist or a philosopher. It is a deep thought process that leads them to get the deeper truths.
Thank you
Prof. Eyrerer has written "Philosophical thinking and logic opens the brain for new thinking directions." and Prof. Kodukula has written "Without philosophy there is no science, management, even mathematics also.".
Namely, I think that one should tell that without mathematical logic there is no mathematics. As everybody know, without first-order logic, we have not the formalization of mathematics. Obviously, one can say about the branches of logic: semiotics, general methodology and just, formal logic. Somebody (of course, not everyone), especially, who is not engaged in logic, mathematics or philosophy, considers logic (in general meaning) rather as one of the branches of philosophy. Thus, unfortunately, not infrequently, one belittles the significance of logic. As I have observed (and probably, this is nothing surprising), the situation often changes, when we are talking about "formal logic" or "mathematical logic", to such person.
I would say that the basic of every branch of art and science is Language. Man developed these only because he has the 'virtual organ' called the 'Faculty of Language' which no other animals has. When a baby is born and grows, it initially thinks of only itslef, me, First person or 1 order. Later You, second person comes in and now it has started in the route of Mathematics, Philosophy and Logic! No Science or art can be described without adequate language.
For more on Faculty of Language, see my RG site.
Narayanan
I would encourage all scientists to at the very least dabble in philosophy, logic, metaphysics and even religion or theology (especially as related to cosmologies but not exclusively there.--Newton certainly did.
Isaac Newton - Philosopher, Astronomer, Physicist, Scientist ...
Video for newton and religion context nature and influence secret writings▶
www.biography.com/people/isaac-newton-9422656
... was one of the 20th century's most prolific writers, writing in many genres. ... English physicist and mathematician Sir Isaac Newton, most famous for his ... Natural Philosophy), which has been called the single most influential book on physics. .... subjects, not least of which were religion, politics and the very purpose of life.
I had an instructor in my alma mater who focused on teaching a course for all students of any subject on the poetry, religion, and philosophies and their reiterative effects on one another. His name was Carl Helrich and he later invited me into an advanced physics course on the modern history and philosophies related to physics. His name is Karl Helrich and he is a leader in studies of religion and science .
http://luthscitech.org/carl-helrich-evangelical-lutheran-church-in-america/
The group Helrich later worked with focused on faith and how to approach new technologies and societal change. Helrich's field of work earlier had been related to works, like this: The Classical Theory of Fields: Electromagnetism (Graduate Texts in Physics) & Modern Thermodynamics with Statistical Mechanics.
I recommend others try to bridge philosophy, life, science and technology in their own lifelong efforts.
I think this is a very good topic helping us to make clear the important relationship between philosophy and science, especially in the fundamental part of science.
There is former logic, mathematical logic and inner logic. Everything becomes conscious according the pre-logic of the pre-conscious level.
Rita De Vuyst> & Lukasz T. Stepien> How can you explain logic related to intuition? In my opinion substantiation of logical process develops intuition and the intuition develops logical reasoning and reversal(a Circular thought process).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research