SCIENCE and PHILOSOPHY
-
Peace Danish,
Nice thread...
If the framework of the origins of science and philosophy are human, as you put it, would you say they are invented as human creations or are they human discoveries measuring what humans did not create?
Is science an invention or a discovery?
Is philosophy an invention or a discovery?Further, you stated
One can safely say that science is nature and philosophy is God in its crude and remote sense. Nature is seen, known and calculable, while God is unseen, unknown and incalculable.
I disagree. Only one facet of nature is seen, known, and calculable. The very foundation of nature is unseen, unknown, and incalculable. Further, phiolsophy, though unseen, is only incalculable in the sense of scientific means. There is a logical structure that must be adhered to in order to keep philosophy from transforming into insane ramblings.
language always has and will remain to play a key role in man's interpretation of life and nature via two bodies; science and philosophy.
I agree.
science guides and basis its reasoning through empirical and natural observations often within reality, philosophy tends to guide and base its reasoning through hypothesis and supernatural observations often outside reality.
I sort of agree. I'd say science is based in what we agree to call reality, while philosophy starts by debating what reality is.
Because of this distinct feature, science overrides philosophy in rationality and logical renderings solely weighed upon evidential pragmatics and phenomenon.
That's called home-field advantage
Of course, philosophy has no place in the laboratory, but I would say without philosophy and, more importantly, imagination, science would be rendered as impotent as a tape measure. Philosophy and science, as a team, are what propel the human mind into new frontiers.Peace,
Tay -
Hello Tay,
Nice thread...
Thanks. As much as I enjoy it, I had a feeling you'd be the first in line to take me up on this topic. Glad you did.
If the framework of the origins of science and philosophy are human, as you put it, would you say they are invented as human creations or are they human discoveries measuring what humans did not create?
You picked my very last sentence to become your first! D I believe in your second question first and the first second.
Is science an invention or a discovery?
Is philosophy an invention or a discovery?Both have their relative understandings unique in their analytical and experimental renditions, though philosophy puts more weight on our faculty through imaginations.
Further, you stated
One can safely say that science is nature and philosophy is God in its crude and remote sense. Nature is seen, known and calculable, while God is unseen, unknown and incalculable.I disagree. Only one facet of nature is seen, known, and calculable. The very foundation of nature is unseen, unknown, and incalculable. Further, phiolsophy, though unseen, is only incalculable in the sense of scientific means. There is a logical structure that must be adhered to in order to keep philosophy from transforming into insane ramblings.
Nature is all we got in which we currently live and as you rightfully stated that it is a logical structure we must adhere to and that is the environment given. Is there another facet? Who knows, in another 500+ years, man may be seen living on moon or another planet yet to be discovered which compromises man?s living standards in totally different environments. Science may pick that up sooner or later and kiss the earth goodbye.
science guides and basis its reasoning through empirical and natural observations often within reality, philosophy tends to guide and base its reasoning through hypothesis and supernatural observations often outside reality.
I sort of agree. I'd say science is based in what we agree to call reality, while philosophy starts by debating what reality is.
My take is that both know what reality is because both live in it, but one makes extraordinary claims.
Because of this distinct feature, science overrides philosophy in rationality and logical renderings solely weighed upon evidential pragmatics and phenomenon.
That's called home-field advantage
Of course, philosophy has no place in the laboratory, but I would say without philosophy and, more importantly, imagination, science would be rendered as impotent as a tape measure. Philosophy and science, as a team, are what propel the human mind into new frontiers.Personally, I come to think of it that science do ?imagine? as in observe or vision by what is given, but then they take it to test. I believe science can comfortably live without philosophy but not the other way around. In many instances, philosophical views even hinder science from progression.
-
peace
I think science deals with facts and philosophy deals with truths.
Science can prove how gravity works, but what do we do with it? What are we supposed to do with the fact that gravity pulls us down to earth? philosophy answers the that question by connecting the facts.
Also, Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge."
It is philosophy that leads to a lot great ideas and scientific discoveries and inventions.
I would say science is a way of testing philosophy, and philosophy is a way of using science. -
Pure science and pure philosophy has a desire to discover or to explain nature, origin of nature and to predict the destiny of nature.
Science moves with commonsense postulates. Science is, from its epistemological considerations, nothing more than a refined and acute commonsense. It tries to reach the ultimate questions of nature, origin, or destiny from its discovery of physical laws or models for explaining physical phenomenon.
Philosophy, on the other hand, tries to attain at the same things but considering the phenomenon, physical and psychical, as a whole. It questions validity of our sense organs, our structure of logic, and of course it questions the means and methods of science too, in order to verify their validity in searching the ultimate questions.
Human beings shall not abandon science or philosophy for the search. With an agnostic or a skeptic attitude, a person can very easily go on with science and philosophy.
But the main question or problem to me is regarding how a person, who submits himself to God, can relate himself with science and philosophy? A submitter to God takes for granted the ideas that there is God and that life shall extend beyond death for eternity as reality. In his life, these two principles are related with essence of his life as human existence, his success, meaning and value of his life. But the two things are, at least till now, beyond the scope of pure science and philosophy.
Science does not take anything beyond its perception or unattained through logical explanation of perception. Philosophy begins with doubts against every unexamined belief, be it of the believers in God or of those of science. While the entire life of a submitter to God is centered on God.
I expect that this thread shall not distract from what Danish pointed at the merits or necessity or requiring of science and philosophy for our life and for our future. I have just added one more point how can we, from our faith in God and afterlife, relate ourselves with science and philosophy despite what has been said in the previous paragraph.
-
Now I understand why they gave us doctorate in philosophy, eventhough we are scientist.
Your statement reminds me of a paper rose. You need a pencil, a paper, crayons and colorful ideas. The first three are scientific while the last one philosophical. Scientists do use their faculties, don't they?
One basically can go without the other.
Not possible in case of philosophy alone.
-
Pure science and pure philosophy has a desire to discover or to explain nature, origin of nature and to predict the destiny of nature.
In order to get an in-dept understanding and clarity of 'pure' philosophy, I would like to question its validity by asking as to what inventions and discoveries has philosophy made that has become facts which scientists do not know of? Please give a couple of good examples and state your reasons as to why these examples are facts/truths? Bear in mind that a prediction or assumption is not a fact. Thanks.
-
Peace Danish,
You picked my very last sentence to become your first! I believe in your second question first and the first second.
It took me a while, but gotcha. So, since you believe in the second question first, I presume you still believe in a "higher intelligence"? If not, please correct me.
Both have their relative understandings unique in their analytical and experimental renditions, though philosophy puts more weight on our faculty through imaginations.
Absolutely.
Nature is all we got in which we currently live and as you rightfully stated that it is a logical structure we must adhere to and that is the environment given. Is there another facet? Who knows, in another 500+ years, man may be seen living on moon or another planet yet to be discovered which compromises man?s living standards in totally different environments. Science may pick that up sooner or later and kiss the earth goodbye.
What I meant by other facets and the foundation of nature is the sub-atomic. It is all theorized yet impossible to see or measure. So, in essence, the core of science itself deals with the unseen. Science has no choice.
My take is that both know what reality is because both live in it, but one makes extraordinary claims.
I see your point, but I only wanted to illustrate that while science accepts reality, philosophy does not. And neither can be really proven without remaining within their own context. There is no objective platform to view either discipline from.
Personally, I come to think of it that science do ?imagine? as in observe or vision by what is given, but then they take it to test.
Please elaborate, because as it's stated, if the observation is given, then there's no imagination required. I think scienctists must rely on what they imagine in order to progress. And in imagining, they've left the realm of science, only to return in order to attempt at verifying what they've imagined.
Peace,
Tay -
You picked my very last sentence to become your first! I believe in your second question first and the first second.
It took me a while, but gotcha. So, since you believe in the second question first, I presume you still believe in a "higher intelligence"? If not, please correct me.
What I meant, Tay, is that when man came into existence on earth, observation and then discovery would obviously be the first thing and then would come inventions and innovations. In case I may have misunderstood you, I am discussing humanly stuff and all that pertains to discoveries, inventions and imaginations by humans in relations to science and philosophy, unless you were pointing to cosmic creation.
Nature is all we got in which we currently live and as you rightfully stated that it is a logical structure we must adhere to and that is the environment given. Is there another facet? Who knows, in another 500+ years, man may be seen living on moon or another planet yet to be discovered which compromises man?s living standards in totally different environments. Science may pick that up sooner or later and kiss the earth goodbye.
What I meant by other facets and the foundation of nature is the sub-atomic. It is all theorized yet impossible to see or measure. So, in essence, the core of science itself deals with the unseen. Science has no choice.
I?ll have to disagree with you here. A ?thing? (substance) is already given to work upon. Science studies and investigates by observations and experiments into this ?thing? and discovers the ?unseen? and taking into account its properties, actions and reactions. These ?unseen? then becomes known. Science makes collective investigations of ?things? and as such the ?unseen? within them, by coordination and interactions to bring about inventions and innovations and continues to dig deeper. Due to these inventions, innovations and its continued advancements, our morals, ethics, discipline and ultimately lifestyle depends and changes in accordance.
My take is that both know what reality is because both live in it, but one makes extraordinary claims.
I see your point, but I only wanted to illustrate that while science accepts reality, philosophy does not. And neither can be really proven without remaining within their own context. There is no objective platform to view either discipline from.
While philosophy makes unwarranted and extraordinary claims, it has no choice but to accept reality, and hence science, and must live with it. And that becomes the object of living.
Personally, I come to think of it that science do ?imagine? as in observe or vision by what is given, but then they take it to test.
Please elaborate, because as it's stated, if the observation is given, then there's no imagination required. I think scientists must rely on what they imagine in order to progress. And in imagining, they've left the realm of science, only to return in order to attempt at verifying what they've imagined.
Observation doesn?t mean just looking in still mode. It is part of perception/imagining that uses the faculties to bring about questions that scientists need answers to, which are then appropriated by further experimenting and analyzing whatever they observed. So then, philosophy is implanted into science, but all in positive notions towards what is already given. Scientists cannot possibly make experiments onto something that is unknown/unseen. In order to find unseen, something must be known/given/present/on-hand, no?
Perhaps you can answer the questions put to Prashant in my previous post and hope others can pitch in their views.
-
Personally, being a person of reason, I've always thought philosophy as something simmilar to abstract thinking. What does this have anything to do with the topic? I dont know. lol
I've never considered Philosophy as something that has wieght. Can anyone explain why it is important?
Dear Pheonix1,
"Also, Einstein said "imagination is more important than knowledge."Keep in mind that that is Einsteins oppinion.
-
In order to get an in-dept understanding and clarity of 'pure' philosophy, I would like to question its validity by asking as to what inventions and discoveries has philosophy made that has become facts which scientists do not know of? Please give a couple of good examples and state your reasons as to why these examples are facts/truths? Bear in mind that a prediction or assumption is not a fact. Thanks.
Just for a simple example
A scientist thinks that the yellow color he perceives on the surface of a banana is the property of the banana and the color is there on the surface.
A philosopher knows that the color which seems to be on the surface of the banana actually is in the head of the observer.
Does this make any sense to you? Can this be considered as a discovery of philosophy which science is ignorant of?
I only said that philosophy and science are engaged in searching for some answers to the origin and destiny of the nature. I did not say that they have succeeded in it. Neither of them has attained any success till now. Explaining the situation of a Tortoise by saying that it rests upon another Tortoise, as science does, does not take us any nearer to the answers to the ultimate questions of existence.
The difference between an Einstein and a Sartre or a Newton and a Husserl is profound. It is very hard for me to discuss it from scrap here. But I shall try.
-
Quote from Danish on October 19, 2006, 072220 PM
In order to get an in-dept understanding and clarity of 'pure' philosophy, I would like to question its validity by asking as to what inventions and discoveries has philosophy made that has become facts which scientists do not know of? Please give a couple of good examples and state your reasons as to why these examples are facts/truths? Bear in mind that a prediction or assumption is not a fact. Thanks.Just for a simple example
A scientist thinks that the yellow color he perceives on the surface of a banana is the property of the banana and the color is there on the surface.
A philosopher knows that the color which seems to be on the surface of the banana actually is in the head of the observer.
Does this make any sense to you? Can this be considered as a discovery of philosophy which science is ignorant of?
The bold above is incorrect. Philosophy doesn't "know" but imagines/assumes hypothetically and emperically without verification or experimentation. In the case of the color yellow, everyone can see that the banana is yellow colored regardless of these bodies. There is a pandora of subjects that deals in color perception, such as spectrometry or optics ((light, electromagnetism, quantum), pigmentation of objects (absorption and reflection) and neurobiology or neuroscience (nervous system, receptors, eye, brain) among others. In simplistic terms, it is to do with light, object and the eye. Philosophy remains dazzled while science brings out the flavors.
-
Peace Danish,
What I meant, Tay, is that when man came into existence on earth, observation and then discovery would obviously be the first thing and then would come inventions and innovations.
Thanks for clarifying. I agree, but I wouldn't limit it only to when man came into existence. I'd say it's part of daily thought, and the premise of every discipline.
In case I may have misunderstood you, I am discussing humanly stuff and all that pertains to discoveries, inventions and imaginations by humans in relations to science and philosophy, unless you were pointing to cosmic creation.
All of the above, but I'll agree to keep it narrowed down.
A ?thing? (substance) is already given to work upon. Science studies and investigates by observations and experiments into this ?thing? and discovers the ?unseen? and taking into account its properties, actions and reactions.
I'm really not trying to be difficult, but please explain via example how an unseen aspect of a "thing" can be discovered.
Science makes collective investigations of ?things? and as such the ?unseen? within them, by coordination and interactions to bring about inventions and innovations and continues to dig deeper. Due to these inventions, innovations and its continued advancements, our morals, ethics, discipline and ultimately lifestyle depends and changes in accordance.
Using the subatomic foundation of all things, isn't it still under heated debate as to what the subatomic world actually looks like? This is my point. Without imagination from outside of science, there can be no argument of the unseen because there is no reference point. There's nothing in existence that's "like an atom" for scientists to use as a barometer. They must, therefore, employ their imaginations via philosophy to even begin to hypothesize.
Now, I agree that technological advancements and the advancing bank of scientific knowledge certainly propells humanity forward, but that is not necessarily good or bad. It's just advancement down a specific path. I'd venture to say that there are probably indeginous tribal folk who know more about "life" than some seasoned ivy league scientific scholars.
While philosophy makes unwarranted and extraordinary claims, it has no choice but to accept reality, and hence science, and must live with it. And that becomes the object of living.
Like I said, this can't be proven outside of it's own context. In scientific terms, you're absolutely correct. In philosophical terms, you cannot prove a word of what you stated.
Observation doesn?t mean just looking in still mode. It is part of perception/imagining that uses the faculties to bring about questions that scientists need answers to, which are then appropriated by further experimenting and analyzing whatever they observed. So then, philosophy is implanted into science, but all in positive notions towards what is already given. Scientists cannot possibly make experiments onto something that is unknown/unseen. In order to find unseen, something must be known/given/present/on-hand, no?
Agreed. Thanks for clarifying...I think we're both saying the same thing.
Perhaps you can answer the questions put to Prashant in my previous post and hope others can pitch in their views.
In order to get an in-dept understanding and clarity of 'pure' philosophy, I would like to question its validity by asking as to what inventions and discoveries has philosophy made that has become facts which scientists do not know of?
The question is loaded. It's the same as asking what philosophical truths has science put forth that philosophers do not know of?
Peace,
Tay -
-
A ?thing? (substance) is already given to work upon. Science studies and investigates by observations and experiments into this ?thing? and discovers the ?unseen? and taking into account its properties, actions and reactions.
I'm really not trying to be difficult, but please explain via example how an unseen aspect of a "thing" can be discovered.
Science makes collective investigations of ?things? and as such the ?unseen? within them, by coordination and interactions to bring about inventions and innovations and continues to dig deeper. Due to these inventions, innovations and its continued advancements, our morals, ethics, discipline and ultimately lifestyle depends and changes in accordance.
Using the subatomic foundation of all things, isn't it still under heated debate as to what the subatomic world actually looks like? This is my point. Without imagination from outside of science, there can be no argument of the unseen because there is no reference point. There's nothing in existence that's "like an atom" for scientists to use as a barometer. They must, therefore, employ their imaginations via philosophy to even begin to hypothesize.
Now, I agree that technological advancements and the advancing bank of scientific knowledge certainly propells humanity forward, but that is not necessarily good or bad. It's just advancement down a specific path. I'd venture to say that there are probably indeginous tribal folk who know more about "life" than some seasoned ivy league scientific scholars.
C?mon Tay, I thought I did a pretty good job from the combined two broken quotes you made above in summarizing a process from observation to invention to innovation. But I guess it may take pages to explain each process step by step to get through to you after all. You?re making me work overtime and I?m already sweating.
What subatomic heated arguments you are talking about? Science is not a dead end and philosophy is still hallucinating in arguments. It seems they never learn and each time they bring about weird stuff, scientists puts their invented bolts on them. But scientists have undoubtedly done a marvelllous job that makes philosophers dazzled and continues to do so. At one point, philosophers thought it would be crazy to travel beyond Earth, but they were stark wrong.
Anyway, let us take a ?thing? such as a tree. From a tree, barks were extracted for various uses, then wood was invented and then innovated to various kinds, shapes, colors and forms, and further numerous byproducts were discovered, all of them to make gazillion items for our necessary usages. From the same tree, gum was discovered and extracted and further resins of all kinds were introduced, including their byproducts, once again for gazillion usages. Can you imagine the ?depth? and the gist of all that came through from their very primary source such as a tree? What I mean by ?depth?, is EVERYTHING from start to finish that went into producing a sophisticated product. This means from observation to discovery to the ?unseen? stuff found deep inside the tree to machinery, tools and chemicals used to actions, reactions and properties to byproducts to final products and the time, labor and sweat that went in. Now, do you thing this is all just imagining things? Can simply philosophy go that deep and produce results on its own whimsical ideas as such? I don?t see any need for philosophers to interfere with scientists, now do they? Not to mention, there are many other products discovered and invented that came directly from the trees as well. Not only that, the scientists found all sorts of information about the tree itself. Much more still to come as scientists further progresses. This is just one example of a ?thing? called tree.
What is good or bad, that depends on person?s lifestyle, using his/her faculties to accommodate the lifestyle and what he/she wants to do with it, knowing the natural consequences.While philosophy makes unwarranted and extraordinary claims, it has no choice but to accept reality, and hence science, and must live with it. And that becomes the object of living.
Like I said, this can't be proven outside of it's own context. In scientific terms, you're absolutely correct. In philosophical terms, you cannot prove a word of what you stated.
What are you talking about, Tay, that I cannot prove a word of what I?m stating in philosophical terms? I have no idea of what you just said. Please explain yourself here.
Perhaps you can answer the questions put to Prashant in my previous post and hope others can pitch in their views.
In order to get an in-dept understanding and clarity of 'pure' philosophy, I would like to question its validity by asking as to what inventions and discoveries has philosophy made that has become facts which scientists do not know of?
The question is loaded. It's the same as asking what philosophical truths has science put forth that philosophers do not know of?
Well, at least have the courtesy to give one example instead of saying its loaded and then quit. If you are here to discuss, then please explain yourself, in the same manner as you need explanations from me.Now to your second statement, it cannot possibly be the same for philosophical truths, for there are none. Philosophy is living along with scientific facts and there is no way out. One certain thing I must confess is that philosophers are really good at is poetry and prose, and to please and sleaze while people sing-a-long. No wonder they have invented an imaginary God having biased attribues they have no idea about and they successfully fooled the world by establishing all kinds of Godly religions that hate each other and among themselves. To top it up, they call it philosophical truths or pure philosophy. ;D
-
The above is what a layman would think, not a scientist who knows something about "color".
So a scientist actually knows optics, neurology etc. and he is pretty sure that the color of an object that he sees with his eyes actually is in his brain. What about other perceptions like sound, smell, temperature? Are they in similar position to color?
-
One certain thing I must confess is that philosophers are really good at is poetry and prose, and to please and sleaze while people sing-a-long. No wonder they have invented an imaginary God having biased attribues they have no idea about and they successfully fooled the world by establishing all kinds of Godly religions that hate each other and among themselves. To top it up, they call it philosophical truths or pure philosophy. ;D
Philosophers can not fool the world because most of the intelligent persons belonging to the world think that the philosophers are lunatics. People of commonsense also do not understand them; neither do they care for what they say.
Hatred is not the qualification of religious people only. Nationalism, racism, communalism are the main culprits for that. And you know well who invents guns and ammunitions to kill each other. In no way the poor philosophers are linked with this. o
-
Your statement reminds me of a paper rose. You need a pencil, a paper, crayons and colorful ideas. The first three are scientific while the last one philosophical. Scientists do use their faculties, don't they?
Not possible in case of philosophy alone.Sorry Danish,
I mean "One basically cannot go without the other."
-
Peace Danish,
What subatomic heated arguments you are talking about?
String theory, Quantum theory, and Holographic theory.
Science is not a dead end and philosophy is still hallucinating in arguments.
I didn't say science is dead.
Anyway, let us take a ?thing? such as a tree. From a tree, barks were extracted for various uses, then wood was invented and then innovated to various kinds, shapes, colors and forms, and further numerous byproducts were discovered, all of them to make gazillion items for our necessary usages. From the same tree, gum was discovered and extracted and further resins of all kinds were introduced, including their byproducts, once again for gazillion usages. Can you imagine the ?depth? and the gist of all that came through from their very primary source such as a tree? What I mean by ?depth?, is EVERYTHING from start to finish that went into producing a sophisticated product. This means from observation to discovery to the ?unseen? stuff found deep inside the tree to machinery, tools and chemicals used to actions, reactions and properties to byproducts to final products and the time, labor and sweat that went in. Now, do you thing this is all just imagining things? Can simply philosophy go that deep and produce results on its own whimsical ideas as such? I don?t see any need for philosophers to interfere with scientists, now do they? Not to mention, there are many other products discovered and invented that came directly from the trees as well. Not only that, the scientists found all sorts of information about the tree itself. Much more still to come as scientists further progresses. This is just one example of a ?thing? called tree.
Ah, I see. So when you say "unseen", what you really mean is "interior". Then I agree - no need for philosphers in order for scientists to get to the interior of the tree.
What are you talking about, Tay, that I cannot prove a word of what I?m stating in philosophical terms? I have no idea of what you just said. Please explain yourself here.
No problem. Using solely philosophical logic, you cannot prove that anything is extraordinary, that this reality is "reality", or that science dictates the object of living. For instance, you say we must accept this reality. The philosopher cannot prove this because he has to take into consideration that this reality maybe dreamland, and dreamland may be reality. There's no reference point so either argument is as valid as the other, hence, this position becomes impossible to prove.
Well, at least have the courtesy to give one example instead of saying its loaded and then quit. If you are here to discuss, then please explain yourself, in the same manner as you need explanations from me.
Danish, are you OK?
Look at what I said and look at the example that I gave
The question is loaded. It's the same as asking what philosophical truths has science put forth that philosophers do not know of?What I mean is that the disciplines do not contribute to each other. So, to ask for one example of what philosophers have contributed to science, as if a measuring point of philosophy's validity, is not really fair, is it? It's like asking what english teachers have contributed to the world of algebra.
No wonder they have invented an imaginary God having biased attribues they have no idea about and they successfully fooled the world by establishing all kinds of Godly religions that hate each other and among themselves. To top it up, they call it philosophical truths or pure philosophy.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Please provide examples of philosophers who've invented religions.
Peace,
Tay -
There's no reference point so either argument is as valid as the other, hence, this position becomes impossible to prove.
Exactly. Our entire knowledge situation is a loop without reference ... mind ... body ... mind ...
Even monistic approaches by Russell or Sartre or the phenomenologists, in order to get rid of every kind of dualism, have not yet seen any success.