philosophy, science, and knowledge

[Cythraul]

One of the main tasks of a philosopher is to reason from premises to conclusions about the world and people and to analyze our fundamental concepts and beliefs. We'd like to think that philosophy gives us some kind of knowledge. But does it really? One might be led to believe that it doesn't, especially in light of the rise and development of science. It certainly seems to be the case that the questions that science poses are amenable to investigation such that we can get what seem to be real answers to the questions posed, while on the other hand it seems to be the case that philosophy has provided little in the way of definite answers to the questions posed by its practitioners. Why is this the case? Does it have something to do with the nature of philosophical questions? Are these pseudo questions? The logical positivists certainly thought this was the case. In fact, they regarded philosophy merely as a clarificatory endeavor, i.e. its purpose was to clarify the propositions of science. This came out of their rejection of metaphysics and their view that the questions of science are substantive questions about things in the world, e.g. "Are material objects composed of atoms?" as opposed to distinctly philosophical questions which, in their view, were merely questions about the logical connections among the concepts that underly science...or something like that. In other words, philosophy was supposed to be science's bitch.

Almost nobody adheres to logical positivism these days, but there are many who hold that science is the final arbiter of truth. Is science the final arbiter of truth? If so, where does philosophy fit in this picture? If not, where does it fit in this picture? To put it simply, what kind of knowledge can philosophy give us that science can't? Am I even right to posit some kind of sharp divide between philosophy and science?

Yeah, I know I've just posed a lot of questions but I'm hoping to see responses to at least some of them.

I'll be back in 10 years to nitpick about someone's use of words. Bye.

 

[spaffe]

Philosophy as I see it goes hand in hand with life, with living. Science on the other hand is simply the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's own sake. This endeavour, the search for any pebble that might make the great pile of science a little bigger, but not more beautiful or grand, is not enough for the great individuals which every society and age are in need of.

To do what you do (in your post, but perhaps not personally, so lets skip that discussion), eg judge philosophy through the glasses of science, in complete accordance with our times, is a dead end. Philosophy does not produce "scientific" answers, but that does not make it less valuble for human life, something which, on the other hand, science has never regarded very highly.

 

[Justin S.]

Cythraul,

Your last line....awesome.

 

[speed]

One of the main tasks of a philosopher is to reason from premises to conclusions about the world and people and to analyze our fundamental concepts and beliefs. We'd like to think that philosophy gives us some kind of knowledge. But does it really? One might be led to believe that it doesn't, especially in light of the rise and development of science. It certainly seems to be the case that the questions that science poses are amenable to investigation such that we can get what seem to be real answers to the questions posed, while on the other hand it seems to be the case that philosophy has provided little in the way of definite answers to the questions posed by its practitioners. Why is this the case? Does it have something to do with the nature of philosophical questions? Are these pseudo questions? The logical positivists certainly thought this was the case. In fact, they regarded philosophy merely as a clarificatory endeavor, i.e. its purpose was to clarify the propositions of science. This came out of their rejection of metaphysics and their view that the questions of science are substantive questions about things in the world, e.g. "Are material objects composed of atoms?" as opposed to distinctly philosophical questions which, in their view, were merely questions about the logical connections among the concepts that underly science...or something like that. In other words, philosophy was supposed to be science's bitch.

Almost nobody adheres to logical positivism these days, but there are many who hold that science is the final arbiter of truth. Is science the final arbiter of truth? If so, where does philosophy fit in this picture? If not, where does it fit in this picture? To put it simply, what kind of knowledge can philosophy give us that science can't? Am I even right to posit some kind of sharp divide between philosophy and science?

Yeah, I know I've just posed a lot of questions but I'm hoping to see responses to at least some of them.

I'll be back in 10 years to nitpick about someone's use of words. Bye.

Is science the final arbriter of truth?

No.

Why not?

Unless the mythical theory of everything is discovered, each branch of science only looks for truth in its own sphere--and even then, these are not truths, but merely observations, experiences, etc, that have not been proven wrong, or falsified. One cannot use the truths of thermodynamics in molecular biology, and vice versa. Thus, each branch of science has truths, or values that essentially exist only for that branch--not the whole. Physics used to think it would be the one sphere of science that would have the answer for everything--but this looks near impossible now. Thus, science can never create a theory of knowledge. And this to me is the difference, philosophy creates--it is creation, or must be creation; something science cannot do.

 

[Seditious]

We'd like to think that philosophy gives us some kind of knowledge. But does it really?

To me, it does. Philosophy, like science, helps me better evaluate the world. I don't so much consider it 'gaining knowledge' so much as 'losing delusions' built up from decades of near tabula rasa ignorance, and assumptions, and doctrines being suggested to me and imposed upon me. As Ludwig Borne said, "Getting rid of a delusion makes us wiser than getting hold of a truth."

 

[Seditious]

Philosophy does not produce "scientific" answers, but that does not make it less valuble for human life, something which, on the other hand, science has never regarded very highly.

yeh. I think it seems both will be important to our future

science is our facts, and philosophy is our values. Niether can give us the other, and since most people don't want to base their values strictly on facts rather than also considering human aspiration, and since people don't want to accept anyones value without some base in truths relevant to our lives, it seems each is the necessary complement to the other.

 

[derek]

yeh. I think it seems both will be important to our future

science is our facts, and philosophy is our values. Niether can give us the other, and since most people don't want to base their values strictly on facts rather than also considering human aspiration, and since people don't want to accept anyones value without some base in truths relevant to our lives, it seems each is the necessary complement to the other.

Yup. The two are mutually complimenting. They do collide, but I essentially see them as different approaches to the bigger picture.

 

[veil the sky]

there is no bigger picture.

the scientific 'picture' is defined by the parameters of truth which it defines upon commencing it's investigation.

the philosophical 'picture' is amorphous and transient. it's under scrutiny within philosophical practice itself, which it very very rarely, if ever is, in science.

what constitutes the picture and where we should be looking for it, as well as whether we should be looking for it at all is all part of the philosopher's concern.

the scientists concern is just the drawing of circles in his epistemological game.

 

[speed]

there is no bigger picture.

the scientific 'picture' is defined by the parameters of truth which it defines upon commencing it's investigation.

the philosophical 'picture' is amorphous and transient. it's under scrutiny within philosophical practice itself, which it very very rarely, if ever is, in science.

what constitutes the picture and where we should be looking for it, as well as whether we should be looking for it at all is all part of the philosopher's concern.

the scientists concern is just the drawing of circles in his epistemological game.

Science should be under as much or more scrutiny as philosophy. How many studies and scientific papers have been written in the last twenty years, that are bunk? I heard the dean of MIT state that bad science--produced by too many profs, researchers, and corporately funded studies--was the primary problem with the scientific world today. No one is holding science accountable for the truthfulness and accuracy of its predictions and hypotheses.

 

[derek]

there is no bigger picture.

the scientific 'picture' is defined by the parameters of truth which it defines upon commencing it's investigation.

the philosophical 'picture' is amorphous and transient. it's under scrutiny within philosophical practice itself, which it very very rarely, if ever is, in science.

what constitutes the picture and where we should be looking for it, as well as whether we should be looking for it at all is all part of the philosopher's concern.

the scientists concern is just the drawing of circles in his epistemological game.

Surely the aim of science is to explore the world and to ultimately try and understand it? In the terms of my bad metaphor, to fill in the colours in the paint by numbers?

 

[Justin S.]

This thread fits perfectly with my Philosophy of Science course (we started with some background, and then moved into the positivists, reading primarily Nagel, Hempel, and Carnap for now).

It is often said that science "explains" things, that it makes the world intelligible or understandable to humans. Is this the case? Even the positivists struggled greatly with the idea of "explanation". What does it mean to "explain"? How is the why-question(s) operating?

I think the "anti-realist" stance carries great weight (basically, we can never "explain" due to the problems of causation (mainly, all causes go to logical limits of "primary causes" and then we are mired in "metaphysics") so science is only useful as instrumental and descriptive.

This is a terrible post, and dont have time to make it better, sorry.

 

[speed]

This thread fits perfectly with my Philosophy of Science course (we started with some background, and then moved into the positivists, reading primarily Nagel, Hempel, and Carnap for now).

It is often said that science "explains" things, that it makes the world intelligible or understandable to humans. Is this the case? Even the positivists struggled greatly with the idea of "explanation". What does it mean to "explain"? How is the why-question(s) operating?

I think the "anti-realist" stance carries great weight (basically, we can never "explain" due to the problems of causation (mainly, all causes go to logical limits of "primary causes" and then we are mired in "metaphysics") so science is only useful as instrumental and descriptive.

This is a terrible post, and dont have time to make it better, sorry.

Yes, I dont know if I comprehend how science "explains" things. I do agree with your anti-realist stance however.

And in science's case, the true explanation is in regards to the methodology used. The methodology gives science the objectivity to even believe it is "explaining" something--and fields like Aesthetics without a realizable methodology, will eternally lack+.