I don't know much about science and philosophy, but the way I see it, both want knowledge. I think scientists are using research to get knowledge. And I think philosophers are using thinking and talking to get knowledge. So philosophers are tinking and talking about things they don't understand. And scientists are researching things they don't understand. So science is far more effective to get knowledge than philosophy. If knowledge is MMA, than I think science is wrestling and philosophy is kung fu. Science > philosophy.
Use both and you'll be much better off than if you trick yourself into thinking that one approach is always better than the other.
It's this kind of incisive thinking concisely put that makes the Mayberry the hotbed of intellectual discourse that it is.
It's effectiveness depends on it's application. If you want to say that knowledge is MMA, you should realize that in MMA, it's always better to know a little something about all the disciplines, rather than to pigeonhole yourself into practicing only one.
There is no vs here. At least not between philosophy and science. Even the conclusion you are drawing is a philosophical statement. Remember that science tells us what happens, everything outside of that and all the conclusions drawn are the realm of logic and reason. Even the computer you are typing on is the product of logicians.
If you want to compare it to MMA; Science is knowing techniques. Philosophy is knowing when to apply those techniques in relationship to your situation.
I went on a morning on a working day. So I thought it would be almost empty, but there were 4 - 6 hairdressers and some costumers. She was also there but I didn't ask her, because it was crowded. :redface: I heard her saying to another female hairdresser " I like that boy " and when I looked in a mirror, because Iwas getting my hair cut. They were looking at me. But the girl I like looked the other way very fast.
Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER'S Stone. Not Harry Potter and the SCIENTIST'S Stone. I rest my case.
They seek answer to different types of questions. In science everything is deterministic. Everything that happens has a cause, and there no purpose or meaning to those causes. Without philosophy you wouldn't have the word "deterministic", because silence does worry about anything outside of that realm, and thus doesn't require such categories. If you want to ponder the purpose of things, you need philosophy. Your analogy doesn't work at all, because Kung Fu could be a subset of MMA, and MMA and Kung Fu can be two tools applied to the same solution. A better analogy would be Science is striking, philosophy is grappling, and rationality is MMA. By applying either philosophy or science as tools towards their applicable types of questions, you a well rounded rational thinker.
This couldn't possibly be more wrong. Chaotic and probabilistic processes pop up all the time in every branch of science. However, this thread draws a false dichotomy, and is stupid
Oh its very potant. But seriously the moment you use an if-then statement you are standing on the shoulders of logicians. Charles Babbage was a logician and Ada Lovelace was a metaphysician.
drink some alcohol before you go next time. Not too much but enough for you to grow a set of balls and ask her out. Also post pics of her so we can judge is she is out of your league.
