The middle option is probably best.

I think first your direct associations are wrong:

philosophy means "love of wisdom" (from ancient greek)

science means "knowledge" (from latin)

so no duality but similarities and completeness

maybe technology matches better to engineer (a mixture of the one who contrives, devises and a clever person)

The split between science and philosophy (the consideration of science as a subset of philosophy) was as recently as 19th century

actually many doctor degrees in sciences are PhD which means doctor in philosophy (not in physics as some may think...)

Having clarified this, the question is still worth under the aspect that modern 1st World countries in the XXI century seems being governed by more or less democratic form of controlled technocracy.

From my point of view, knowledge goes first and from it technology can be derived as an application of knowledge.

I do not mean knowledge is superior, just that it must occur before than (or in the limit simultaneously to) technology.

Well, you may argue some technological advancements took place without (fully) knowing the science underlying and supporting them.

But I can oppose, on the one hand science is always conventional (until it proves wrong or incomplete) so full knowledge does never exist, and on the other hand the number of such exceptions is rather low and they shall remain as exceptions.

Finally, only when the underlying science is understood you may talk about "applied science".

I used those associations in popular terms that philosophy implies acquiring knowledge for the sake of it, and science implies finding proofs of hypothetical knowledge, applying them, and hence controlling nature, leading to technology. If I can create a cellphone, I have invented a way to tap the radiations by means of some devices. Philosophy can not do this. Although science does contribute to knowledge and hence improves philosophical discourse, but then philosophical methods of inquiry are not acceptable to science. That's why there is a separation.

But nonetheless, philosophy can exist without science but science can not exist without philosophy. An idea always precedes science.

But again, back to your original question, no single one is isolated better.

I still see philosophy as a broader area eventually includingy science in its body of knowledge, and then I cannot split them.

Now terms and definitions forgotten, you are stating in your comment "acquiring knowledge for the sake of it", I do not think this is philosophy or whatsoever but it would be "fagosophy" and this leads you also to nowhere (well maybe this is my fault, I always want to reach something, most of the time just a smile of the ones around me).

I make the same distinction between bibliophiles (people loving books) and bibliofagues (people just reading books as a "score" or "benchmark").

Remember Friends episode with Joey buying only the V book of an encyclopedia, and trying to demonstrate his recently acquired "knowledge" in the Central Perk...

I think the most important, and very often forgotten (specially in this technological world, where almost anything can be found by asking Mr. Google ) is the healthy exercise of thinking: developing your own ideas, creating a series of thoughts, even such stupid things as self proving than sum(i) = n * (n+1) / 2, or that deep such as the same quarks making Saturn are making you alive.

I wish to bring to your attention a similar question that I asked in a separate thread:

Philosophy and Science, what is the connection?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Philosophy_and_Science_what_is_the_connection

I quite like one answer by Chris Jeynes:

"Philosophy" means, literally (from the Greek), "lover of wisdom". "Science" on the other hand comes from the Latin and means "knowledge". Does knowledge make you wise? Conversely, does wisdom bring knowledge? The answer to both questions is a clear "NO".

On the other hand, the wise man (and I use "man" and its pronoun in a gender-neutral sense) desires understanding and must therefore seek knowledge. Conversely, the knowledgeable man "knows that he knows nothing", as Socrates said: that is, he understands the limits to his knowledge, and consequently (and necessarily) must take a wide view of his field.

So although philosophy and science (wisdom and knowledge) should be carefully distinguished, they are convergent disciplines. They are different, but overlapping; in fact, any good description of the one will have the influence of the other in the background.

What would I say to the philosopher? "Read widely!" What would I say to the scientist? "Read widely!".

It is very unfortunate that in the past couple of years we have seen physicists attacking philosophy, notably Hawking claiming: ".... and philosophy is dead". But what amazes me is that when physicists say they do not need any help from philosophers, they may not realize it that while doing physics they are actually engaging in philosophy. And some of them do it quite well. Nobel Laureate in physics, Steven Weinberg, for instance, has written brilliantly on the limits of scientific explanation — which is, after all, a philosophical issue. It is also an issue about which contemporary philosophers have interesting things to say.

Going back to your question, I believe we can't make the distinction you propose: which is better philosophy or science. While philosophy and science are two different disciplines, they do overlap and converge and when they do they are both equally important.

On a separate note, science and technology are not the same thing. Science is the art of discovery, engineering is the art of invention and technology is the bridge between the two.

Taking philosophy with it, Science can grow in a better way.

I had given a similar answer before, Science and Philosophy go hand in hand! Each is inadequate without the other! Science finds the reason behind each phenomenon and Philosophy finds the reason behind each event, statement, mental state! Both complement each other !

Please explain what you mean with "better"

As for Technology. That does not need "philosophy". Technological discoveries are often made heuristically or serependitiously and afterwards theory/philosophy comes in.

Think of Edison possibly the most outstanding technologist.

Also: what is "control of nature"? in this respect science describes very limited and very closely defined events in our surroundings

Philosophy is vital to follow and practice science logically, productively and successfully. Without philosophy we can neither fully understand science nor nature.

Ahmedani

please tell me how we can understand nature and what is nature

My Dear Dr. Harry, Although it is really embarrassing for me to explain something which you know better than me. However, I cannot decline to offer my comments because you being a very senior and high caliber scholar have demanded for this. To my understanding nature comprises of all sorts of physical, biological, biochemical, geographical, geological and social phenomena occurring around us. These phenomena can only be understood if we meditate keenly, precisely and logically. Philosophy equips us to think logically, rationally and meaningfully and hence indirectly helps us to understand the mother nature and its mysteries.

Philosophy is extremum stage of science.each scientist finally become a philosopher.

dear Ahmedani

Thank you for your praises but in science everybody is quite equal and I give my opinion just as everyone else in a forum. Science and philosophy have in common that they keep on asking questions.

What you mention is nature as we try to see it. Nature itself does not care how we humans call it or parts of it. In fact we ourselves are part of nature so how can we understand nature when we cannot understand ourselves.

hat you call science is a very very limited part of "nature" or "world" and an invention of humans to describe what he observes. He also communicates with others in the "language" of science and it is a miracle that all of us sense the same with respect to the space around us and motion.

Nature has no mysteries it is we who want to understand parts of the world around us and in ourselves that call some events and observations mysteries.

A question to you: what are for you the mysteries of nature?

to Sunil

I like to mention that many scientists are in no way philosophers. They are extremely good in their profession but may never think any further than their profession.

Another example is Edison who invented many of the apparatuses we still use to day.

A scientist can be a philosopher but does not necessarily become a philosopher.

Why do you think so?

Nature can/t be overruled.when one become a scientist ,he realised this fact.Then he becomes a philosopher.In my opinion a philosopher surrenders before superpower(god).A mason n engineer R different stage.

Sunil

Please define for me what nature is

Nature is beautiful creation of god.we R also part of it.blowing of wind,rain fall etc R natural phenomenon.It is impossible for us to say root cause of origin of universe.Well developed country Japan is unable to control earthquake happening daily.No scientist is able to make a drop of blood.so after a certain stage every learned person surrender before superpower and that stage is of philosopher.

Sunil

You feel naturenis part of god. Then the discussen is closed

An answer to the original question

We cannot control nature. Weather, earth quakes, volcanic eruptions are all parts of nature. what can philosophy add to this?

At a small scale we can control experiments to find new medicine and other gadgets. We do not need any philosophy for that

Hi Tarun,

I maybe wrong, but I find this question a framed a little incorrectly.

I think there are 4 different things involved in questions and they are all separate entities.

1. Knowledge.

2. Philosophy

3. Science

4. Technology.

I am roughly defining it as i understand it.

1. Knowledge is a data or a collection of data that has been assembled or unassembled which has been perceived or even created.

2. Philosophy is field that deals with the synthetic interpretation of Reality to produce hypothesis and theories. This may lead to valid discoveries of facts. (But then these facts would come under the heading of Science.) This synthetic interpretation of reality is nothing else still but data and can be termed as 'knowledge'.

3. Science : is a collection of Facts that can be repeatedly proven by experiments and can be duplicated as per some laws. This is actually 'knowledge that is correct and can be demonstrated.'

4. Technology : This is a category of application as well as knowledge. Here the Knowledge from Science is used to form a very specialized Knowledge that can be put into varying or manipulating the Reality that we observe, and proved when we were philosophizing...

So i think Philosophy is the Father that created Science-the Daughter. But Technology is the Daughter's offspring..And all of the three would be Knowledge, except for Technology that has an additional aspect of Application.

So in a nutshell, i think all have their parts to play, and none is better than other unless one gets biased (on personal preferences) on these topics! Cheers!

Hope this viewpoint helps.

Nuwais

as for your point 3.

You apparently do not know Science. Science is not an encyclopedia of facts. It is framework based on basic parameters and postulates; it is incorrect to call these laws.

And where exactly is the line between science and technology

Coming back to the original question

Which is better philosophy (knowledge) or science (technology)

I do not know what knowledge means in this respect? individual knowledge, the combined knowledge of mankind; and then knowledge of what?

To be cynic. Rather technology when you like your modern comfort

@Harry.

Well As far i understand about Science is not just a framework based on basic parameters and "postulates" but Postulates that "Work"

(Definition of postulate as i have used above is:

A proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning.)

"Science is not an encyclopedia of facts" is your interpretation, idea and origination. Not mine :)

"So i think Philosophy is the Father that created Science-the Daughter." What i meant by this statement is that one observes, creates data and sees if it stands the test in the real world and the one's that do is are the Facts that we call Science.

Cheers Harry

Nuwais

Agreed what I was referring to is physics and not science as a whole. However physics is the most limited branch so also the easiest to follow with respect to the "laws" and observables.

As an example: what is space or even length or time? What is the fact: an apple falls from a tree. Another fact a pound of lead falls faster. meaning that for the same length lead takes a shorter time. Its velocity is higher' velocity is length divided by tiem

Observed, but why?

For this to explain we need the whole framework of the Newtonian "laws" that are postulates relating length time and mass; but what is mass. New parameter undefined but this parameter explain the faster falling. This is almost semantics.

Post is incomprehensible, I regret to say the person who has posted this question does not know difference between science and technology and philosophy as a discourse how to know and knowledge.