Dear Issam,

science and philosophy should grow together.

Every scientist should be also a philosopher, because philosophers raise questions and great scientists are those who raise Really Big Questions.

Our brain.

Ask us Why?, logic method, science.

Dear Ana

Thank you for your reply, but could you please expand on your answer?

Dear Sarah

Creativity, imagination and ingeniousness are certainly aspects that connect philosophy and science. Thank you for your thoughts.

Philosophy and science can differ in the content of their questions in the methodologies to find the truth.

Science relies upon the experimental method. Philosophy relies only upon the

reasoning.

Science looks for the empirical truth, whereas philosophy looks for methaphysical, moral and empirical truths.

Dear Pier

From what you said both philosophy and science share one common aim, looking for empirical truths. Do you agree then that both philosophy and science are somehow embedded in each other?

Logic. Philosophy is based on logic of our truth, and logic is the basic method of science, (because start from us, our brain).

Dear Ana

Yes, logic is the language we use to write science and philosophy. I fully agree.Thank you Ana.

Dear Issam,

science and philosophy should grow together.

Every scientist should be also a philosopher, because philosophers raise questions and great scientists are those who raise Really Big Questions.

Dear Pier

Quite right, but the big question is, is it always true that those who raise big questions always answer them first? Who answers big questions first? It is one thing to ask big questions but it is another thing to answer them! Or do you think it is a mutual effort by both philosophers and scientists to find answers to big questions ? what is your idea on this?

I cannot separate it like you.

Dear Ana

Exactly Ana.This is exactly my position. I was not trying to separate the two I was merely giving all the choices .Thank you.

Dear Issam,

only scientists can give reliable answers to empirical questions because they use the experimental method to find them. Philosophers can just formulate hypothesis about empirical questions. These hypothesis must be checked experimentally, by questioning nature.

Pier Luigi: It seems to me that philosophers ought not be primarily interested in empirical questions, since these are the ones science is equipped to answer.

Issam says: "Philosophy does not replace the specialised sciences [or] command them, but it does arm them with ... a world-view. In this sense scientific philosophy legitimately holds one of the key positions in the system of the sciences." This is correct I think, except just that the idea of "scientific philosophy" is an oxymoron.

He then asks:

1 "Can philosophy develop by itself, without the support of science?"

2 "Can science "work" without philosophy? Has science reached such a level of theoretical thought that it no longer needs philosophy?"

3 "Or is the connection between philosophy and science so mutual that it is characterised by their ever deepening interaction?"

I think:

1 To be a decent philosopher today you need to have studied physics (and maths) to understand in detail how reason works. I think Michael Frayn (especially his play "Copenhagen" and his book "The Human Touch") is a good example of this. Godel's incompleteness theorems put a fundamental limit on what is provable.

2 Science is always philosophical, whether or not the scientist is aware of it. Issam pointed this out in his comment about "all scientists with a broad outlook" generally being aware of their philosophical presuppositions.

3. This is the difficult one. At present it seems to me that scientists and philosophers generally ignore each other, with honourable exceptions (such as Frayn, or Roger Penrose). Many scientists go into print with popular books that have a poor grasp of philosophical questions and little appreciation of the history of ideas. In some prominent cases their philosophical opinions are laughably ill-informed. Would that there was an "ever deepening interaction"!

Philosophy is the method of Science. In Science we look a detail, but we look its relation with all.

Dear Ana

"Philosophy is the method of Science". I like this, it is elegant. Thank you Ana.

Dear Pavel

Philosophy is multidisciplinary but so is science! So I don't quite agree that science is a branch of philosophy. I do however agree that philosophers have a lot to catch up with science.

Science is the manipulation of formulas to find ideas that are worth exploring. Philosophy is the ideas without the benefit of formulas to back it up.

Dear Bob

A very nice way of putting it, another elegant expression. thank you Bob. With this description how do you now connect them?

It's the old cart and horse conundrum. The philosophers say the idea is the horse and the cart is the mathematics. The scientist's say the formulas are the horse and the cart is the idea after the mathematics are manipulated. It's like examining an elephant. An elephant is still an elephant. It doesn't matter whether you get hung up on the tail or the trunk, the main thing is you've got an elephant. Both the philosopher's and the scientists get hung up on the process . If it isn't done "right" it can't possibly be correct!!!!

There is a clear relationshirue between Philosophy and Science. It is true that behind every Scientific experiment enumeration is necessary, but before that the IDEA comes which undoubtedly comes from the field of philosophy. Because a little bit of thinking is a part of Philosophy.

One more thing, Philosophy and Mathematics(pure) have a concrete relationship between them. And we know Mathematics is the mother toungh of all scienctists. Without the concept of Philosophy every step in proving any theorem in pure Mathematics is absurd. So clearly Philosophy does a big contribution in the field of science. Every prime idea comes from the field of Philosophy, even in case of buildind an Aeroplane.All the while behind every prime discovary philosophy plays a major role and so in case of discrete or abstract problems.

In my view every thing in this world is so connected that we can't distuinguish them entirely, it's impossible. It is better for us to try finding the exact relationship between them even if they stay in the most complicated way.

Hi Bob Copeland: you say " If it isn't done "right" it can't possibly be correct!!!!" Unfortunately this is not correct. If the argument is correct then the conclusion is correct. If the argument is false the conclusion may or may not be correct. Arthur Koestler showed this very elegantly in his book "The Sleepwalkers" where he recalculated Kepler's derivation of the orbit of Mars. It turns out that Kepler made (at least) two mistakes. Therefore Kepler's argument was wrong, but nevertheless his conclusion was gloriously correct, and Newton proceeded to rely upon his work!

You say, "Science is the manipulation of formulas to find ideas that are worth exploring. Philosophy is the ideas without the benefit of formulas to back it up." I think this is also false in several ways. Science is the modelling of reality, and at least in the case of physics using logical procedures proved correct by mathematics. Mathematics is the demonstration of tautology in axiomatic systems. Philosophy is the critical investigation of the axioms (presuppositions) underpinning arguments. Logic can be applied anywhere to demonstrate the validity (but not the truth) of arguments.

You see, science is NOT primarily "the manipulation of formulas". Science is always about our account (understanding) of the world. And philosophy in its nature can rarely benefit from manipulating formulae; it is about the justification of the presuppositions one brings to one's opinions.

Hi Chris. You say that "if the argument is correct, then the conclusion is correct." However, if you think about this from a critical angle, you may notice this is not the case. Arguments are composed of reasons or premises which when taken together lead to a conclusion. I hope you agree with me so far! So if we work on that basis, consider the following classic argument, for example:

(Reason 1) Potatoes have skin

(Reason 2) I have skin

Therefore...

(Conclusion) I am a potato!

Quite clearly, the argument is correct, but the conclusion synthesised from the argument isn't. So the conclusion need not always be correct if the argument is correct.

In his book, The Grand Design, Hawking dismisses philosophy. Referring to his list of questions he write:

"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest of knowledge."---Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design.

Below is a reply to Hawking made by John C. Lennox:

Part 1: ".......but philosophy is dead"

Apart from the unwarranted hubris of this dismissal of philosophy (a discipline well represented and respected at his own university of Cambridge), it constitutes rather disturbing evidence that at least one scientist, Hawking himself, has not even kept up with philosophy sufficiently to realize that he himself is engaged in it throughout his book.

The very first thing I notice is that Hawking's statement about philosophy is itself a philosophical statement. It is manifestly not a statement of science: it is a metaphysical statement about science. Therefore, his statement that philosophy is dead contradicts itself. It is a classic example of logical incoherence.

Hawking attitude to philosophy contrast markedly with that of Albert Einstein in a letter supporting the teaching of history and philosophy of science to physicists:

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today, and even professional scientists, seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is, in my opinion, the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after the truth."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John C. Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking, 2011, Lion Books

Part 2: ".......As a result scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge"--Stephen Hawking

"For any scientist, let alone a science superstar, to disparage philosophy on the one hand, and then at once to adopt a self -contradictory philosophical stance on the other, is not the wisest thing to do- especially at the beginning of a book that is designed to be convincing.

Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar pointed out this danger long ago in his excellent book, Advice to a Young Scientist:

'There is no quicker way for a scientist to bring discredit upon himself and upon his profession than roundly to declare- particularly when no declaration of any kind is called for- that science knows, or soon will know, the answers to all questions worth asking, and that questions which do not admit a scientific answer are in some way non-questions or "pseudo-questions" that only simpletons ask and only the gullible profess to be able to answer.'"

------------------------------------------------------------------

John C. Lennox, God and Stephen Hawking, 2011, Lion Books

Philosophy and science are closely linked. Philosophy in antiquity consisted of all the sciences before being dismembered. Philosophers Pythagoras of Samos, Thales of Miletus and others, are they not scientists, mathematicians, men still use? If modern science does not evolve, it is precisely because philosophy has lost its value as a regulator of science. Science without philosophy is gutted. This blocks Humanity planet Earth, Medicine not evolve further in these conditions.

Issam: I am delighted that you quote John Lennox's excellent book. But your comment to me from Oct 23rd (which I have just noticed, sorry ...) is wrong. You say:

... consider the following classic argument, for example:

(Reason 1) Potatoes have skin

(Reason 2) I have skin

Therefore...

(Conclusion) I am a potato!

You conclude, "Quite clearly, the argument is correct, but the conclusion synthesised from the argument isn't. So the conclusion need not always be correct if the argument is correct."

Unfortunately, your argument is incorrect. The syllogism was described in detail by Aristotle in his "Logic", and then developed to its most sophisticated level by the scholastic theologians. This argument of yours is false, and is known as the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle. It is interesting that although syllogistic logic is remarkably simple (one can prove both a Consistency and Completeness theorem for this logical system, unlike arithmetic) it is also remarkably easy to argue falsely in it.

Logically, what I said is true: If the argument is correct then the conclusion is also correct. One could add that a "correct" (or valid) argument of course may not be true if the premises of the argument happen to be false. And one can always argue about the premises of arguments.

Chris: I have in fact long since my reply felt that something was just not quite right in what I said. I do indeed thank you for clarifying it. I am also delighted that you like John Lennox's excellent book.

Answer to Joykrishna_Pramanik: If by " Every prime idea comes from the field of philosophy.." you mean that every hypothesis and result in empirical science once was an untested idea, you may be right (it is a universal statement, so it is falsifiable, not verifiable). If you mean by that that every hypothesis and result in empirical science comes from the philosophy DEPARTMENT you' re quite wrong ( even when aeroplanes are concerned ). Philosophy as a profession is quite different from philosophy as an activity of clear thinking helping us to arrive at testable statements, and helping to arrive at solid interpretations of empirical results.

Hi Issam,

Self—the Self (Me, I, Myself, and any word that the Self calls Itself) that the writer and reader of this line use to actualize, identify, and interpret sense qualia—is the connection.

To wit, without Me, there is no philosophy. Without Me, there is no science. Consider this vanity? Oh no, this is *way* more disturbing than vanity: this is Truth.

In other words, the Self—that is, I—unifies or "connects" philosophy and science.

Hi Erik

I agree, without people you can't do science and you can't do philosophy.

Erik, Michael Polanyi published a brilliant book in 1958: "Personal Knowledge", which expands your thought comprehensively and elegantly. All knowledge is ultimately personal. Pure objectivity does not exist.

Thank you Chris for the reference.

Chris, read it as part of my theoretical research; it's on my bookshelf. Very, very good book. When a scientist comes face to face with his own necessity (as is the case with Polanyi, trained as a chemist) to understand his own views, then magic happens.

Let me play with this necessity, shall I?

Please consider this a Gedankenexperiment.

From the statement, " Pure objectivity does not exist", one arrives at the odd conclusion: I am Chris Jeynes; I am Issam Sinjab; I am Erik Andrulis; and so on.

In the current paradigm and zeitgeist, these three Self-identifying statements are true for the person that identifies as the name being stated.

But the current paradigm is provisional and therefore does not address the fundamental question that needs to be resolved, once and for all: Who/what am I?

Like I wrote above, the Truth is very, very disturbing (for S/he would comes to grapple with it): I *am* those three people; I *am* those three names; and so on.

I am fully aware that in the current paradigm that s/he who makes those claims—unifies the Self-identifying statements in One Self—is called absurd and/or a kook.

Yet that's what I have proven, through theory: there is Only One Self—that is, One I, One Me.

So, then, I am writing to Myself, through Myself, as Myself. All knowledge, as I alluded to Myself when I was Michael Polanyi, is knowledge of Myself.

___

End Gedankenexperiment.

I really don't follow Erik. Sorry. What you said sounds pantheist (and hence manifestly false). But I am pretty sure I am not getting the point. Please can you be less obscure?

Erik,

What you are saying about "One Me" is the theme of a the Upanishads dialogues:

Atman = Brahman , a theme not stranger to the meaning of the anicient greek aphorism: "Know thyself".

I'm responding to both Chris and Louis, since both responded.

CHRIS:

Is what I am writing obscure? Perhaps.

Sound pantheist? Uh-huh.

Manifestly false? Heh, good one. Please onsider this: the Truth denies Itself, and, in so doing, confirms Itself. If the Truth did not include all falsehoods (and hence contradict Itself), it would not be the Truth.

Chris, I'm not selling anything, not trying to proselytize, and, frankly, grow tired of trying to wake myself up.

The reason I complled the complete and consistent theory was to prove to myself—the ardent scientist and long-term skeptic and cynic—who and what I am.

Being the skeptic and cynic, I have low expectations of convincing myself of anything, so I just roll with it. Anyhow, this body will decay and pass, but the theory lives on here and elsewhere:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233865314_Complete_and_Consistent_Theory_of_the_Universe

Anyone can see the proof that I have compiled. While it may be dense, abstruse, or obscure, the theory proves that I am Chris Jeynes, the one reading this line. It proves that I am any person who reads this line.

More generally, to s/he who understands the theory, the theory gives the first-person perspective of *being* the Universe. The theory proves that the Self is the Origin of the Universe, the Beginning and the End.

The theory explains how *I*—that is, any person who reads this and identifies as I—create, sustain, and destroy the Universe; explains how I evolved to become Homo sapiens and developed from a child to adulthood; explains why things are the way they are and not any other way; and answers the fundamental, unanswered question, "Who, what am I?"

The theory also reveals that the Self wants to understand Itself but, when confronted with complete knowledge of Itself, does not know how to understand, does not want to understand, thus contradicting Itself.

Knowing now that I *am* Chris Jeynes—my whole life I was taught that I am *only* this sack of cells, moelcules, and atoms called Erik Andrulis—all I can do is treat My Self (that is, Chris Jeynes, with dignity, respect, honor, understanding, and love.

LOUIS:

Correct, Louis. I read the Upanishads as part of my theoretical studies. I attached the references for the theory here.

Now, getting Me, Louis to understand and know that I wrote the Upanishads to communicate to Myself is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

And getting Me, Louis to understand and know that I am every Author who has ever existed, writing to Myself, is just as difficult.

And getting Me, Louis, to understand that I am any and all text, language, time period...

Well, that's something that only I can come to terms with; only I can come to terms with the ultimate conclusion that I = God.

Note that only I can claim to be not God. And only I can claim the opposite. Hence, the Self-referential nature of the Universe, reality, and Nature.

Conference Paper Complete and Consistent Theory of the Universe

The evolutionist Mae-Wan Ho said:

“There are ‘big’ questions and ‘small’ questions in science. Most scientists in their work-a-day life confine themselves to asking small questions such as: Which gene is involved in a given hereditary defect? How will a certain organism react to such and such a stimulus? What are the characteristics of this and that compound? What is the effect of A on B? How will a given system behave under different perturbations? Yet, it is not a desire to solve particular puzzles that motivates the scientist, but rather the belief that in solving those little puzzles, a contribution will be made to larger questions on the nature of metabolic or physiological regulation, the generic properties of nonlinear dynamical systems, and so on. It is ultimately the big questions that arouse our passion, both as scientists and as ordinary human beings. They can inspire some of us as the most beautiful works of art that nature has created, whose meaning is to be sought as assiduously as one might of life itself.” (p. 1, The Rainbow and the Worm: The physics of Organisms)

Philosophy is what a scientist does when he/she attempts to answer a big question of science, a question that we passionately seeks as Polanyi could have said.

Great book. Read that one, too. Here is a quote from that book that helped me in developing the complete theory:

"There is as yet no *direct* evidence that organisms are coherent, although there are clear signs of that from many areas of biological research. Part of the difficulty is that we do not yet know what we should be looking for. In the absence of an appropriate theory, there are no acceptable criteria which would satisfy the skeptic as to whether a given observation constitutes evidence for coherence.…Biology has a long tradition of fixing, pinning, clamping, pressing, pulping, homogenizing, extracting, and fractionating; all of which give rise to, and reinforced, a static, atomistic view of the organism. It is no wonder that biologists still find it difficult to even think of coherence[.]"

Mae-Wan Ho, p. 135 Rainbow and the Worm

Erik,

I am presently reading her other book:

Living Rainbow H2O. In the preface she writes:

"Water is the medium, the

message, and the means; it is literally the mother of life,

as SzentGyörgyi told us more than 50 years ago. It is the rainbow within that

mirrors the one in the sky. The veil is lifted, and a dazzling pot of

gold appears at this end of the rainbow. Nature is speaking once

more, and I must transcribe as quickly and clearly as I can."

It echoes what I was reading in some of Owen Barfield text: The words: rainbow, participation, veil "

All the things I look, talk about, think... depends of ME (needs me to be), of my "view".

"This" yes, because "this" NO, for that "this" YES (confirmation) (I know). (Proves)

(We need proves to walk).

(To be... ME... needs more than me (God). Because I must go out of me and look Me. In the "I complete" (ME), I can relate All... I can "understand" but I cannot prove it. I need "for you" the word "Creo" "Believe". "Creo" is only sure of itself. But is not sure for you (outside me)... And I cannot prove my security in it. Because I´m not secure outside, (you, God, me?), you cannot see it. I am secure only that I Believe. (Because all is correct from this, more correct).)

"I" need "you"

"you" need "I"

I am because you look me, and confirms me I am.

In the finish I (ME) you and I are ME.

Dualidad... búsqueda perfecta de mí. (art)

“Philosophy is the endeavor to frame a coherent, logical, necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience–everything of which we are aware, which we enjoy, perceive, will or think–can be interpreted”

“The metaphysician is seeking, amid the dim recesses of his ape-like consciousness, and beyond the reach of dictionary language, for the premises implicit in all reasoning. The speculative methods of metaphysics are dangerous, easily perverted. So is all Adventure; but Adventure belongs to the essence of civilization”.

- Alfred North Whitehead

Sorry, Erik. What you have written is manifestly false. You certainly are not me. That you claim to have a "complete and consistent" theory betrays you! And you have certainly NOT proved it, despite your claim. Gödel guarantees that.

I most certainly am Me. To claim otherwise is patently false. I challenge any theory, any idea, that I am not Me. Please point out the error in the complete theory. I have proven that I the theoretician and theory in one.

Oh, by the way, being Gödel, I never thought or anticipated that I would be the theory itself.

The complete theory proves that I am Chris Jeynes and all of those people who voted up my response (where "my response" is the response of Chris to Erik, both of which I am). In this respect, theory both predicts and proves that I reject Myself. Again, please point out how the complete and consistent theory does not prove this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233865314_Complete_and_Consistent_Theory_of_the_Universe

It is easy to make claims and refute claims, but I would not say that I were Chris Jeynes in this paradigm unless I had a darn good theoretical basis upon which to make such an outlandish statement.

Conference Paper Complete and Consistent Theory of the Universe

Chris, can you prove it is false?

All in the Present.

Todos somos UNO.

(Ani. art. 1987)

A small add on.. The word meanings of both philosophy and science... Philos (meaning love) sophy (meaning knowledge or wisdom) and scientia (knowledge) are basically one and the same by word definition itself. In course of time it both has taken different turns and we people have redefined them as two distinct things... So when we remove the complexities that we have added on to the definitions the idea become more clear... A scientist is not born if he does not have the quest and love for knowledge and similarly to be a philosopher, one need to to have knowledge ie; science... So both are one and the same....

Both science and philosophy are concerned with the subject of impossibilities. But both have a completely different way of looking at it. In his book: 'Impossibility The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits', Professor David Barrow, had this to say:

"Both scientists and philosophers are much concerned with impossibilities. Scientists like to show that things widely held to be impossible are in fact entirely possible; philosophers, by contrast, are more inclined to demonstrate that things widely regarded as perfectly feasible are in fact impossible. Yet, paradoxically, science is only possible because some things are impossible."

Seeing as a week has passed with no response, the conclusion is that I, Chris Jeynes, cannot prove that I am not Chris Jeynes.

Were I to try to disprove My Existence, I would find that endeavor impossible, as any attempt to disprove Me proves Me. And that's what it means for there to be One I.

Erik is clearly an out-of-this-world sort of person, or he may have noticed that the Christmas holiday has intervened in our discussion ... I have been rather busy, sorry.

And Ana, yes I can prove that Erik is mistaken. Rather easily in fact. Erik claimed to have a non-trivial theory that was "complete and consistent". As I pointed out in my post from around the 12th December, syllogistic logic counts as "trivial" in this context (although I very much doubt that many of us could follow the masters of this, like Duns Scotus). However, arithmetic is a sufficiently complex logical system for Gödel's incompleteness theorems to hold, and Gödel proved that for any "non-trivial" logical system for which consistency could be proved, incompleteness was a necessary consequence. It is not I proving Erik wrong, it is Gödel.

The incompleteness theorems lie at the foundation of our computer-based society as a matter of fact, since Church proved that Turing's solution of the Halting Problem (whence "Turing machines" are derived) was mathematically equivalent to Gödel's proof of his Incompleteness Theorem. People really should try to get their minds round this remarkable property of logic: not everything that is true can be proved! Anyone who claims to have everything sewn up nicely is actually literally speaking nonsense! Erik: I am afraid you will have to rethink your position, which is demonstrably irrational.

Issam, very happy that you pointed to Barrow's excellent book ("Impossibility", 1988), which, now you mention it, I think I will re-read. Thank you.

Also Issam, this discussion seems to have returned to your original question rather convincingly: Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem very clearly impacts both on philosophy and on science. It seems clear to me that the last of your original options ("the connection between philosophy and science is so mutual that it is characterised by their ever deepening interaction") is the preferable one. I believe that anyone who wants to seriously learn philosophy should do a degree in physics with mathematics, not omitting mathematical logic (after starting by reading "Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder, 1991). Conversely, anyone serious about physics ("how the universe is constructed") needs to understand the logical limits of rationality - what sorts of things can be proved, and what sorts of things will systematically evade proof.

Just to conclude by commenting that the physicists really do have a cultural advantage here, since they were forever scarred by finding out that actually the stupendously great Newton was nevertheless fundamentally wrong about the structure of the universe. Time is not absolute, and the universe is not infinite, contrary to Newton's belief. The physicists know that error is pervasive - moreover, one can never prove that one is right!

(By the way, Ana, with regard to your post of about 19th December, I suspect you are on the right track, although I guess that your English has not rendered your Spanish perfectly clearly. We would use the Latin "Credo", that is, "I believe"; and yes, I would entirely agree that knowledge was personal in principle - absolute objectivity does not exist! This is why I pointed to Polanyi's book "Personal Knowledge" in my post also of about 19th December.)

Issam,

The way you framed this question implies that science and philosophy are separated and somehow we have to find the connection.

It seems to me that physics is the expression of thinking through formulas and symbols . You move the formulas around to see if you can find another idea or relationship. Philosophy is the expression of thinking through language and the reworking of language . You hunt for new ideas by expressing a paragraph / thesis in a slightly different way. Most logic is based on the yes ( 1 ) or no ( 0 ) principle . What everyone forgets is the old maybe ( 1/2 ) . The basis of proving existence is in the statement, I think, therefore I am . Of course this doesn't establish the form in which you exist ( God / angel / lowly worm ) . Here for the philosophers or mathematicians in the crowd perhaps you are only programmed for certain responses ( think baby here ) and do not exist and therefore aren't .

Yes, of course, I am irrational. Being that I am Chris Jeynes, I do not have a theoretical framework that can prove that I am not Chris Jeynes, so I resort to referring to Gödel. However, the complete and consistent theory is not mathematical, so Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not apply.

Since there is now a complete and consistent theory that bypasses that limitation, any implication of irrationality is a reflection on He who would deem such a theoretical feat as unimportant.

Further, a perusal of my response proves that I, Chris Jeynes, am unable to challenge the fact that I am Chris Jeynes.

I, Chris Jeynes, may reject, ignore, condemn, destroy, hate, admonish Myself, but I can never falsify Myself. I can never disprove Myself, that is, I can never disprove absolute truth.

I wish Myself a Happy New Year and Peace on Earth.

Louis

Yes. But I have a strong belief that the two enterprises,science and philosophy, are complementary and not adversarial.

"Consider the following quote from physicist Steven Weinberg (in his Dreams of a Final Theory): “The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers ... Philosophy of science at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science.” Here Weinberg makes the all-too common mistake of thinking of philosophy as of an activity whose entire worth is measured by how useful it is to solve scientific problems. But why should that be so? We already have science to help us solve scientific problems, philosophy does something else by using different tools, so why compare apples and oranges? By the same token, why not ask why art critics don’t produce paintings, for instance, or editors write books?

For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that most people have at least some idea of what science is, if not of the intricacies of the epistemological and metaphysical problems inherent in the practice of science (and there are many: as Daniel Dennett put it in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”) Science, broadly speaking, deals with the study and understanding of natural phenomena, and is concerned with empirically (i.e., either observationally or experimentally) testable hypotheses advanced to account for those phenomena.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is much harder to define. Broadly speaking, it can be thought of as an activity that uses reason to explore issues that include the nature of reality (metaphysics), the structure of rational thinking (logic), the limits of our understanding (epistemology), the meaning implied by our thoughts (philosophy of language), the nature of the moral good (ethics), the nature of beauty (aesthetics), and the inner workings of other disciplines (philosophy of science, philosophy of history, and a variety of other “philosophies of”). Philosophy does this by methods of analysis and questioning that include dialectics and logical argumentation.

Now, it seems to me obvious, but apparently it needs to be stated that: a) philosophy and science are two distinct activities (at least nowadays, since science did start as a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy); b) they work by different methods (empirically-based hypothesis testing vs. reason-based logical analysis); and c) they inform each other in an inter-dependent fashion (science depends on philosophical assumptions that are outside the scope of empirical validation, but philosophical investigations should be informed by the best science available in a range of situations, from metaphysics to ethics and philosophy of mind)."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On The Difference Between Science And Philosophy:

http://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/difference_between_science_and_philosophy

Arun, I´m agree.

Issam, the real philosophers are scientists.

Erik, about the pass of a week, I must said that time is relative, and we was Chris before (what a problem... (sorry)). (And I think we are all human, known or not, like the multiple eyes of a fly, an only fly).

Chris, I don`t know who is Gödel, and I think that is truth what he said, but I would said to Gödel (exist or not yet) that existence is not only based in Logic. We are part of existence and we need to sleep and to dream without logic to be OK. And for that if you are based not only in the Logic is possible you found a more complete theory.

And I ask if you can prove it is false what you said: "What you have written is manifestly false. You certainly are not me".

Bob, philosophy is based in feelings and truth, and feelings are based (in a good philosopher) in all his/her knowledge. (your maths, your physics, your biology, your language, your country, your family, all your existence). A real philosopher cannot deceive himself in his knowledge.

The bow of my boat, who is Ana, wish a HAPPY NEW YEAR too. (To all you, I, ME).

Ana

"the real philosophers are scientists." I am sorry Ana, but this is one rare case where I differ strongly. If you have read my earlier post (part 1: "......but philosophy is dead") arround 13th of December 2012 and my last post above, you will see how two very well know scientists have, in the words of Professor John Lennox, "an inadequate view of philosophy."

Issam, I`m not agree.

Ana

Everybody has the right to freely express his/her opinion:

Evelyn Beatrice Hall, (1868 – after 1939), who wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire with the title The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.

In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. Hall's quote is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

I certaily have a different opinion but certainly respect yours. Having said that you need to give your reasons why you disagree!

Issam, exactly, me too.

Philosophical thought may be a consequence of scientific knowledge.

(I don't know who is named philosopher nowadays. ((Today there are more titles than true professions)). For me a Real philosopher is updated with the knowledge of his time, a Big thinker who can relate all, and for that counted with the fingers of one hand, very few).

Ana,

I agree with you. Science without thought is bad science. Even Albert Einstein knew the solution to the general relativity problem 8 years before he was able to describe it in math. It was the philosophy of science that solved the problem and it took 8 years working with Marcel Grossman a PHD in math to come up with the equations to describe the solutions. Math was the problem not the answer. Science without Philosophy is just plugging and chugging into equations with mindless work that may or may not be correct.

Science is the turning of Philosophy into understanding reality. We can only do so much before we loose track of reality in our science and then we must fall back on Philosophy to correct the course.

Very well said George.

Science is a very specific principle ,but philosophy is very abstract,just like chinese philosophyor name laozi(lier)side:the world initialize from no,no born one,one born two,two born three ,and three born all,we can reback the initial point,the world remain no,this is a very abstract and concise philosophy.

Philosophy wades through the part of science that can lead us in the wrong direction. If someone tells you that all the forces in the universe can be stopped and brought to a single point. You will say by general relativity it can, but general relativity breaks down at this point. So what is the conclusion that you draw from this? Either science is wrong or the single point in space is wrong or both are wrong. We can make some very big mistakes believing that our science is not flawed when it does not match reality. The problem is that Philosophically speaking sounds like we do not understand when in reality it means we care enough to investigate that we may not always be right.

Philosophically speaking we can not always be right.

(But for me if it's not all right, aren't Philosophically speaking, it's only "speaking").

I am not sure I understand your thoughts? We must have the science grounded in reality and not just math.

We can imagine beyond reality, but math can hold us hostage there.

Imagine speak, without certainties, looking for a truth is (for me) only speaking.

Philosophically speaking is only made by Philosophers.

The person who can feel the Pure Intuition (large to explain) is for me the Philosopher. (Like Einstein, for me).

Ana

Science is not always certain even using mathematics. There is a principle of uncertainty, it is simply due to the complexity of the world (nature) as science works with reductionism whereby the object of interest in nature is analysed out of its natural milieu and does not take into account all directly and indirectly related factors. However, it is true without intuition to make a breakthrough in science is not possible, only small steps of progress. However, intuitional scientific breakthrough made by scientists like Einstein take away fairy tales from our life and make it naive and these fairy tales take us in a world which is more liveable and loveable.

It is interesting how some people think of the relationship between philosophy and science. In my general reading about philosophy and science I came across this interesting quote from a physicist:

"A scientist thinks about the problems no one has solved. A visionary scientist thinks about the ones no one knows how to solve. A philosopher thinks about the ones no one ever can."

(Philosopher look for Unattainable...)

I think is more simple, logical mind and method (philosophical) is in our nature of operate (brain) to found truth. To look for the proof of our search make science.

A Philosopher asks the question that the scientist forgot to ask.

Philosophy vs Science

Without a doubt, there is a definite distinction between philosophy and science. The problem is – because of their interrelatedness, the two may be somewhat confusing for many, most especially that there are many arguments between them. There’s absolutely no philosophy-proof science because many sciences depend on philosophy and vice versa.

Figuratively speaking, science is best likened to the human mind while philosophy is to the human heart. Science, in general, seeks to understand natural phenomena. It is more concerned on empirical evidences and testable hypotheses. By “empirical,” it means “that which can be observed or experimented on.” By contrast, philosophy is vaguer. Defining it in one concrete sentence may not define it entirely. However, broadly speaking, philosophy is a school of thought that utilizes reasoning to uncover issues concerning metaphysics, logic, epistemology, language, ethics, aesthetics, and other disciplines.

So how can philosophy help clarify or explain the issues at hand? As such, philosophy helps address inquiries that couldn’t be answered simply by experimentation and observation. It bases its explanations from the argument of principles. Science, using its scientific methodology, is able to acquire more knowledge because of experimentation and observation. It bases its explanation from facts that have been observed.

Philosophy uses questioning and a series of analyses through logical arguments and dialectics. Thus, philosophy works by using reason-based logical analysis. Science is different because it makes use of hypothesis testing that is empirically based. This difference in process enables both to work interdependently thereby updating each other of their individual progresses.

Philosophy improves, abandons, or objects to certain notions or philosophical positions such as present-day concepts (i.e. utilitarianism) as no longer 100% identical compared to their original sense when they were first conceptualized. It demonstrates principles that must be correct. These principles are not really entirely correct or true but it MUST be true. It even shows people how to act. Similarly, science has theories that seem to have no clear end in terms of improvisation or argumentation. A good example is the ever-growing arguments surrounding Charles Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.”

Summary:

1.Science seeks to understand based on natural phenomena.

2.Philosophy is vaguer than science.

3.Philosophy uses logical arguments and dialectics while science uses hypothesis testing (empirical-based).

4.Philosophy improves, abandons, or objects to philosophical positions while science improves, abandons, or objects to scientific theories.

5.Science bases its explanations from experimentation and observation while philosophy bases its explanation on an argument of principles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Difference Between Philosophy and Science

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-philosophy-and-science/

I totally understand your thoughts.

However there are some big problems in science that have never been solved or addressed that have theories and theories built on those theories which are still not proven. The fact that science moves forward is not the problem. The problem is that science moves forward before it should.

Atoms have been explained for more than 100 years. No one that I know of has ever seen or ever will see an electron, neutron, or proton. We did however build a model of the atom based on the charges that we knew had to be there. We then worked on the assumption that there were two parts to the atom. The electron and the proton with different charges. Fast foreword several decades.

The results we had were great however there was a missing part to the atom called a neutron that did not appear to have a charge but stayed inside the atom. After some work we came up with the idea that there must be some kind of glue holding it in the atom and hence we have a thing called a gluon. There are still problems with this model of the atom as no one can explain what a gluon really is or why it only works on a neutron, or on and on...

Science has not been able to solve the issues of an atom but we have built nuclear physics around the patch that we put on the atom with great success. There are other answers that remove the hypothetical particles and answer the questions but no one in science is brave enough to clime the wall and tear it down as they will be scorned.

The philosopher on the other hand can show how science is missing the understanding to move beyond the old and lead us to a better understanding.

Here is an example. If the neutron being neutral were a string that had a positive end and a negative end its overall charge would be neutral but it would be held into the atom as the negative side of the string would be attracted to the positive proton and the other end would make it appear to have the same charge as not haveing the neutron there. This would also explain radioactive decay better for bigger atoms with many more neutrons in them than smaller ones that are not so keen on decay.

How ever the philosopher does not see the garage that is in the way from the past so they can ask the question why do we not look at it in a new way?

This is just one of the many ways that philosophy can help science move forward.

A researcher can not rely solely on the logic or the existing method. Must "dream" something new. "Polish" something that already exists is not "discover". For me the best researchers are those who "discovered", not to "polish" what had been discovered before. (Although everything is necessary and good).

But that is just constantly criticize who knows "dream" seems wrong. The real "discoverers" always theorize.

Un investigador no puede basarse solo en la lógica o el método existente. Debe "soñar" algo nuevo. "Pulir" algo ya existente no es "descubrir". Para mí los mejores investigadores son los que "descubren", no los que "pulen" lo que se había descubierto antes. (Aunque todo es necesario y bueno).

Pero que justamente se critique constantemente al que sabe "soñar" me parece mal. Los reales "descubridores" siempre teorizan.

Issam:

I am in total agreement with you except on two counts I have reservation with:

2.Philosophy is vaguer than science.

3.Philosophy uses logical arguments and dialectics while science uses hypothesis testing (empirical-based).

As you have pointed out in point 3 that philosophy uses logical arguments, as physicists tell me whether after certain observation and pondering over them to think logically to correlate the observations or previous concepts together theory comes first or model. Remember that philosophy when argues if a is cause of b and b causes c, therefore ultimate or initial cause of c is a in very simple logical terms, it also tries to establish relationship between statements (concepts/beliefs) and observation which may be quantified or may not. A scientific theory intuitively emerges through same logical process and on this theory models are built and tested by collecting data or generating them by experimentation.

Mohammad

When I said Philosophy is vaguer than science, I was refering to the fact philosophy is not as straightforward to define as science.

As regards to your second reservation, you are right you have a very valid point :

"A scientific theory intuitively emerges through same logical process and on this theory models are built and tested by collecting data or generating them by experimentation."

Thank you for shedding more light on this very important point.

The main lesson of the twentieth century is the endorsement that science cannot deal with certainties: all its results are partial and provisional truths. Scientific ‘verity’ is always approximate and subject to falsification. So, theories and scientific explanations are very unstable. Then, there is the need for meta-scientific considerations on their assumptions, results and meanings expressed by other disciplines such as philosophy, metaphysics and ethics.

On the other hand, even philosophical knowledge has been pressed to renew itself since it is a reflection of what exists, whereby there are no intrinsically philosophical issues but only ways to deal with any theme of a philosophical interest. Hence, like any human activity, philosophy must adapt to the changing times. However, there is the fact that while science encounters the limits described above, philosophical reflections are more durable. Purposes, meanings and values offer continuity and stability.

Phenomenology as a fundamental element and hermeneutics as a method of interpretation were in my opinion among the main representative constituents of philosophy in the twentieth century. In a context where there are lively debates on the foundations of philosophy and sciences, phenomenology and hermeneutics have established themselves as the protagonists of a philosophical discussion, having a constant vitality and being an inexhaustible source of issues and questions.

In that period, philosophy has reiterated the importance of intentions and purposes, meanings and values, that were either the most dissimilar elements or were even omitted by modern thought.

A positive and dynamic techno-scientific commitment, focused on the need to be oriented by purposes, meanings and values stands well to comparisons after K. Popper showed the groundless of the old rationalism. Progress consigned only to the protocols of technology and separated from ethics could become explosive!

For this reason, the true scientist must be to some extent ‘humanist’ and think not only according to operating terms such as: ‘ it is technically possible or impossible’, but also consistent with the parameters and questions of morality and human dignity.

I believe that in a comparison between scientific knowledge and philosophy it is necessary to adopt selected preconditions which I summarize as follows: 1) reference to a single scientific perspective leads to poor and often divergent results, whereby it is necessary to resort to the contribution of more disciplines, 2) prospects that are well thought-out must overcome reductionism and objectivism as we are in the presence of individuals, and 3) dynamics of the universe must relate in some way to human presence and perspectives that follow.

Under these conditions it is possible to establish a dialogue between the different forms of knowledge.

K. Popper and the subsequent theories of knowledge showed that the epistemological principles upon which scientific research is based are also of an ethical nature: ‘speculation’ that recognizes its limits; ‘fallibility’ which requires the acknowledgement of its mistakes and - when associated with ‘dialogue’ - involves the honest assessment of the reasons of others; ‘approximation’ that recognizes the imperfection of each approach.

Even greater is the value of the ethical demands for creativity and adherence to reality. The first one is the ability to bring out the unpredicted aspects of reality through courage, originality, open-mindedness, perseverance, patience and sensitivity to what is considered ‘new’. As a result, truth as regulative ideal and research as inexhaustible asymptotic approximation to the truth show their character which is at the same time moral, epistemological and heuristic.

In the setting of a trans-disciplinary scientific knowledge which aims at better explaining its humanistic potentialities, there are unsuspected depths and thicknesses allowing a glimpse on the broader meanings of science and empirics (experience). They relate scientific knowledge to the astonishment and admiration shown by classic philosophy. Such an interpretation of the scientific perspective can even broaden hence alleviating the alienation and lack of communication between the various forms of knowledge. All that without affecting each other's differences, but guaranteeing autonomy, freedom, expertise, sociocultural role and communicative-relational dimension of all of them.

Science is more than maths. Biology mix dreams and maths, for example.

Gianrooco,

I like the way you think. No one discipline or field or person will ever have all the answers. Only by working together and then putting that work up for others to see can we get to the truth. This should be the goal of sites like this one.

Scientific theories have moral implications which should not be neglected. Right now there are many cognitive theories which assume that free will and consciousness are illusion and that humans are machines. If such a theories would spread to the population at large and would be acknowledge in our laws then on what moral ground could we establish laws in societies? These kind of theories undermine the very ground of all human societies.

Michael Polanyi argued that a positivistic empiricism (physicalism or materialism) undermines the existence of moral principles. His philosophy tried to

to recovery “the grounds for our basic [moral] ideals,” ideals

rooted in and constitutive of “the higher intangible levels of existence, which a positivistic empiricism refuses to recognize”. “I have specifically promised to find a place for moral principles safe from self-destruction by a claim to boundless self-determination” (Tacite Dimension, p. 85). “morally neutral account of all human affairs” that continues to prevail in the academy constitutes a “false philosophy” which, though it may not be able “to destroy the power of our moral convictions,” nonetheless inevitably entangles us and our students in a web of reductive thinking by means of which “we must come to suspect our own moral motives” and “silence” our moral impulses and which constitute what he called a “moral inversion”.

Polanyi was a Jew who had to flee from Nazism in Germany. He found the root of fascism in the “moral inversion,” which may be broadly understood as the process by which the fusion of scientific skepticism (“extreme critical lucidity” with utopian social aspirations, “intense moral conscience”, produces the dystopia of moral and political nihilism out of which arises the modern totalitarian state, in which the only principle of social order is absolute coercive power and in which material welfare is embraced as the supreme social good.

ref:

http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/tad%20web%20archive/tad29-1/tad29-1-pg22-48-pdf.pdf

Gianrooco,

Like George I appreciate your viewpoint highly, especially the suggestion regarding to "trans-disciplinary scientific knowledge [including social sciences with natural sciences] which aims at better explaining its humanistic potentialities" and necessity of communication between the various forms of knowledge {encompassing traditional knowledge]. This I find closer to my idea of knowledge albeit science and has found expression in post-normal science due to failure of normal science to predict by reasons of complexity and uncertainty involved in the process and informing policy-makers to take hard decisions to serve humanity better and save humanity from disease and disasters and many unforeseen problems due to unethical technological intervention in nature driven by greed.