Philosophy Now Forum

If science does not provide a firm ground for philosophy, then what does it do?

BigWhit wrote:Philosophy and science are indispensable to one another. Philosophy has a tendency to bring up the omage of old sages talking about shit that doesn't matter, but philosophy is essentially the exercise of logic. The goal of philosophy is to arrive at logical conclusions, but in order to do this we must have accurate premises. This is the realm of science. Since the subject of all philosophy is the universe, for even we are merely a part of it, science conducts experiments to determine whether or not a premise is true or false. If a premise is not true, all philosophy springing from it can only come to false conclusions by logical deduction and truth only by chance. If a premise cannot be proven correct or incorrect then all philosophy springing from it is merely speculation.

One's ability to philosophize is directly related to their ability to use sound logic. One's ability to do science is directly dependent upon how well they can isolate causes in experiments.

Without science, all we could do is speculate, without philosophy, there is no reason for science to exist.

You are a joy to listen to.

Arising_uk wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Philosophy and science are indispensable to one another. Philosophy has a tendency to bring up the omage of old sages talking about shit that doesn't matter, but philosophy is essentially the exercise of logic. The goal of philosophy is to arrive at logical conclusions, but in order to do this we must have accurate premises. This is the realm of science. Since the subject of all philosophy is the universe, for even we are merely a part of it, science conducts experiments to determine whether or not a premise is true or false. If a premise is not true, all philosophy springing from it can only come to false conclusions by logical deduction and truth only by chance. If a premise cannot be proven correct or incorrect then all philosophy springing from it is merely speculation.

One's ability to philosophize is directly related to their ability to use sound logic. One's ability to do science is directly dependent upon how well they can isolate causes in experiments.

Without science, all we could do is speculate, without philosophy, there is no reason for science to exist.

You are a joy to listen to.

I still think he's confusing the disciplines slightly.

BigWhit wrote:If science does not provide a firm ground for philosophy, then what does it do?

Scientific methodology, supported with logic, provides firm ground for science. Philosophy is reasoning from a solid foundation. The two are neither the same, nor are they interdependent.

Maybe the contradiction of modern meme has simplified conjecture to a point of objectivism, where we no longer view opinion as subjective, but rather a collective willful ignorance.

BigWhit wrote:If science does not provide a firm ground for philosophy, then what does it do?

For practical purposes? Principally it provides fodder for the magic known as "technology".

In reality though science really does provide some understanding of basic forces and processes. The problem with science is that its practitioners see models prefentially to reality or their own ignorance. Rather than seeing the reality expressed through experiment they see their extrapolations and interpolations.

Philosophy is a product of language. Science is a product of metaphysics and experiment.

cladking wrote:In reality though science really does provide some understanding of basic forces and processes.

Not really. The various particles, waves, forces, fields, etc of physics always remain nothing more than epistemic tools which form a part of the model which the physicist devises to codify the naturally occurring order in nature. There's no such thing as a "right" or a "wrong" way of doing this so science cannot reveal such a thing as an ontological truth.

cladking wrote:Philosophy is a product of language. Science is a product of metaphysics and experiment.

Nicely put. However each is self-indulgent navel-gazing without the other.

Scientific methodology, supported with logic, provides firm ground for science. Philosophy is reasoning from a solid foundation. The two are neither the same, nor are they interdependent.

Science is nothing more than that methodology. The purpose of science is to query the universe about it's characteristics. The purpose of philosophy is to understand what those characteristics mean and how they relate to each other and ourselves. Without a factual foundation on which to rationalize, which science provides, we might as well be speaking gibberish.

I view philosophy and logic as synonymous. Logic is the foundation of philosophy and philosophy, at least sound philosophy, cannot exist without logic. I've come to define philosophy as the application of logic. This definition may be unpopular but every definition, just like every experience of reality, is ultimately subjective. And everytime someone talks about using logic in science I interpret that as philosophizing about scientific facts and discoveries.

BigWhit wrote:And everytime someone talks about using logic in science I interpret that as philosophizing about scientific facts and discoveries.

Science uses only mathematical logic and such a logic form can only be used to codify a narrative about reality which must first be specified. In other words mathematics cannot model reality but only what the scientist theorises about reality. If he gets his theory wrong then the models thus derived will make no sense and yet remain entirely mathematically consistent. In physics this is exactly what has happened with the continuum of space and time, which is exclusively a metaphysical statement and obviously a false one.

Obvious Leo wrote:
Not really. The various particles, waves, forces, fields, etc of physics always remain nothing more than epistemic tools which form a part of the model which the physicist devises to codify the naturally occurring order in nature. There's no such thing as a "right" or a "wrong" way of doing this so science cannot reveal such a thing as an ontological truth.

Yes.

But all knowledge is visceral and scientific knowledge becomes visceral knowledge with experience. Obviously you're right that knowing the temperature of the inside of the sun is different than "knowing" this temperature, but remember we can feel it from here and see it on our instruments. One really can integrate the reality as discovered through experiment.

On a societal or group level scientific knowledge is only epistemic but on an individual level some of this can compose elements of "truth".

We might argue about the "truth" of whether or not the sun is hot but the arguments will be mere words with different meanings to each listener and different relevance. While we might all agree the sun is hot it might feel quite chilly to a hypothetical plasma being.

I'm simply suggesting that the results of science can be a basis for philosophy if its metaphysics are adjusted. Of course it's no longer science with a new metaphysics but its results remain fundamentally unchanged if we change the metaphysics after the fact. We must be more careful about the extrapolation of results but this will be no more a problem than is currently being done. Science can lift us out of the morass of superstition but so far it has merely provided new superstitions and a vantage from which our ignorance is invisible. It must be used in conjunction with philosophy that is less dependent on interpretation.

Obvious Leo wrote:
Science uses only mathematical logic and such a logic form can only be used to codify a narrative about reality which must first be specified. In other words mathematics cannot model reality but only what the scientist theorises about reality. If he gets his theory wrong then the models thus derived will make no sense and yet remain entirely mathematically consistent. In physics this is exactly what has happened with the continuum of space and time, which is exclusively a metaphysical statement and obviously a false one.

Indeed.

But remember the individual scientist must use logic to invent hypothesis and experiment. This doesn't show up in the finished product because "science" cares only about what the scientist does that is repeatable and applicable to a specific problem.

Much of the advantage of running concurrent sciences is that it can greatly help in hypothesis and experiment formulation.

BigWhit wrote:

Scientific methodology, supported with logic, provides firm ground for science. Philosophy is reasoning from a solid foundation. The two are neither the same, nor are they interdependent.

Science is nothing more than that methodology. The purpose of science is to query the universe about it's characteristics. The purpose of philosophy is to understand what those characteristics mean and how they relate to each other and ourselves. Without a factual foundation on which to rationalize, which science provides, we might as well be speaking gibberish.

I view philosophy and logic as synonymous. Logic is the foundation of philosophy and philosophy, at least sound philosophy, cannot exist without logic. I've come to define philosophy as the application of logic. This definition may be unpopular but every definition, just like every experience of reality, is ultimately subjective. And everytime someone talks about using logic in science I interpret that as philosophizing about scientific facts and discoveries.

I don't as much disagree as I see this from another perspective. I see a problem with science in that it makes it difficult to see what we don't know and a bigger problem with philosophy in that it is dependent on a language that means something different to everyone. There's so little progress in philosophy because we can't build on the work of past greats. These problems can be redressed.

It's not necessarily that philosophy is dependent upon language but that communication is dependent upon language. This isn't a barrier, but an obstacle. Each discussion requires an agreement upon definitions of the core subjects of debate in order to avoid confusion.

I refuse to accept your premise that we can't build on the works of the past greats. Has no philosopher built upon Plato and Aristotle? We see less progress because most people are not educated of the past greats and the foundation they laid, and many who are are more inclined to criticize, compare, and debate those foundations than to build on them. Not only this, but many are content with debating the abstract for which there is no firm basis and from which no firm answers can arise. There is no progress in these studies because there is no progress to be had. This is why philosophy is folly without science. Philosophy needs firm empirical grounds from which to operate and this is what science provides.

Take for instance the deduction that heavier object fall faster than light objects. Using logic and experience, this is a perfectly sound hypothesis and was beleived to be true for centuries until it was scientifically tested. This is no longer a philosophical or scientific discussion, but understood as the way the universe operates. If we cannot find progress in any philosophy it is because it requires the application of science.

BigWhit wrote:Philosophy needs firm empirical grounds from which to operate and this is what science provides.

You’ve said this at least twice. I submit that science infers from empirical observation, as can philosophy. Science can enhance observation. Philosophy can infer from principles, as can science, but principles are formed by rational inference based on accurate observation.

Walker wrote:

BigWhit wrote:Philosophy needs firm empirical grounds from which to operate and this is what science provides.

You’ve said this at least twice. I submit that science infers from empirical observation, as can philosophy. Science can enhance observation. Philosophy can infer from principles, as can science, but principles are formed by rational inference based on accurate observation.

I would submit that philosophy MUST infer from empirical observation. For philosophy to be useful it requires empirical observation and the scientific method provides the most accurate observations. If, "philosophy can infer from principles...but principles are formed by rational inference based on accurate observation," then all philosophy requires science.

Philosophizing on a subject for which there is no empirical observations is merely speculation, and prone to bullshit.

I submit that A (philosophy) requires B (science). If not B, not A.