Science vs. Philosophy

Post Reply New Topic

I've noticed on occasion some odd that comes out of a lot of supposedly scientific minded individuals and its something that I've never understood; ie. a sneering contempt for 'philosophy', its looked upon much in the same light they see theism (ie. psychobabble). This blog I think hits the nail on my head about my own beliefs.

Have you ever come up with a hypothesis or an interpretation of meaning to scientific data? Welcome to philosophy, you're already steeped in it.

http://thephilosopherschair.com/35-scie ... philosophy

Both are attempts to understand the nature of the world, the universe, ourselves and reality in general. The difference is that science works from the bottom up and produces knowledge, while philosophy works from the top down and produces baristas.

Isn't philosophy really just a pool of hypothesis though? For all I can tell we use it on a low level when we're between scientific experiments trying to decide what we want to do next with the raw data that science provides.

Well, the issue comes in due to thinking styles and methods of discovery. Yes, science is philosophical in certain elements, but scientists will not tend to make the same intellectual moves as philosophers, and distrust those intellectual moves.

Science is a branch of philosophy. The modern educational is left-wing scientistic garbage, however, and it has turned many intelligent, able people into barbarians.

Scientists sneer at philosophy more because they don't understand it, and it's unpopular among their generally left-wing cliques, than anything else. They don't realise without the laws of non-contradiction they're just jerking off in an isolation tank.

But still - the philosopher forms a hypothesis, the scientists works in ways to come up with quantifiable experiments to test components of that hypothesis to find a theory or, at an even later date, find a law. The philosopher is only off in idiot land if he's claiming things that have already been scientifically disproven.

Outside of that science tells us what's out there, it can't give guidance on how to use it. At least for the time being we haven't gotten into the business of quantifying the good or bad of decisions or come up with experiments big enough of comprehensive enough to prove beyond debate ore even more discovery what are the most salient in shaping our societies and perspectives as well as what ideas produce the best outcomes.

to me philosophy is all well and good, untill people tyu to actually use it as an argument or oreason, philosophy has no anchor to the real world and people often forget.

My eyes bled reading it. Whoever wrote that article has apparently never studied nor science nor philosophy. The ignorance of people who do not bother understanding science is amazing. Science is not a branch of philosophy – it was hundreds of years ago.

There is a ton of definitions for a word philosophy. Seems to me that many tend to equal thinking to philosophy. Any debate is useless until all notions are clearly defined. If it is used in a sense of being an academic discipline in which it should then science has little to do with it (but not the other way round). But of course one may say that *everyting is a philosophy* and in a way one would be right as well - then science is a philosophy but that is about it. I hope that makes sense.