Discussion in 'Mayberry Lounge' started by $uperman, May 20, 2014.
Dang son. Can't my compadre even ask a question?
Philosophy and science aren't opponents actually.
It certainly could be "more wrong", but I'm willing to admit it's simplistic and imprecise.
Determinism, was probably not the right word in retrospect.
What I meant is that all science deals with is causes and results of phenomena.
The phenomena may be driven by linear deterministic forces, or chaotic probabilistic forces, but it's always:
Phenomena -> ??? -> phenomena
Philosophy won't get you scientific knowledge. This is why science and religion clash in respect to questions like how did the world form. What philosophy does is tell you what to do with knowledge in respect to yourself and others. So religious philosophy can continue even with science.
Scientific question: What are humans made of?
Philosophical question: What defines humanity?
Both interesting questions, I think. Maybe you're thinking of what I think is called "Natural Philosophy". Someone can correct me, but that's where you sit and think about what the universe is made of, and decide that it's four elements, and the four elements combining in different quantities make all matter. So yeah, science has pretty much superseded that. But that's just a small part of philosophy.
Honestly, I was being a bit facetious, but I really do think that pitting science and philosophy is rather pointless, mostly because "philosophy" is entirely too broad of a topic. Science itself can be seen as a branch of philosophy, just one that places an emphasis on empiricism.
From what I've read of your posts, $uper, I think philosophy is your game. Even this very thread, asking "what is knowledge" and "what method of knowledge acquisition is superior" is in the realm of philosophy, not science. Science can maybe one day answer that question with respect to "information", but "knowledge" is different.
I have listened to podcasts about pre Socrates philosophers and they lived more than 2000 years ago. So they didn't know what the universe is made of, but still had weird theories about it.
So instead of researching it they talked and tought about it. And that ofcourse didn't work.
Life is a comedy for those who think. Discuss...
see, you are already way off. you do not understand what science if for and what philosophy is for. don't feel bad. even really smart physicists constantly get it wrong.
why are we here?
-would you answer using philosophy or science?
what is the circumference of a circle?
-science of philosophy
Right, but that's just a small branch. Does this sound more interesting?
Not picking the bit of the video that you agree with, but the analysis itself.
OP is assuming the "knowledge" gained from science and philosophy are exactly the same. Simply put, philosophy begins where science ends. A search for answers that the scientific method can't provide. They intersect at times of course, but that's how I see it.
Science is how, philosophy is why.
the scientific method did not arrive until 1600 AD, so what do you want?
I would answer religion.
TS has a join date of 2002 so even if he started posting at 7 years old, which I highly doubt he did, that would make him 19 years old.
So TS, what do you do in life exactly?
But why not religion ( why ) + science ( how )?
I would say that they are quite diffrent.
I would argue that science covers why as well.
If we were to look at a question like why are we here on this earth both science and philosophy will have answers. Science would go about it in a well scientific manner where as philosophy would look at it in a much deeper level.
Separate names with a comma.