Can there be any intelligent science pursued without any philosophy?

[sinnerdexter]

Personally, I am more interested in science that produces practical results than anything else.

 

[Anselm33]

It depends on what you mean by “intelligent science”. Science has its rules–the interaction of theory and experiment. But to make sense of science (i.e. to do more than just get numbers out) one needs a point of view. And even though for most scientists this isn’t explicit but implicit, it’s still there. I’ll use quantum mechanics as an example: there are various interpretations of qm extant, but none are disproved by experiment. (which isn’t to say that there might not be experiments to disprove one or another). The only interpretation that has been disproved, by the Aspect experiments violating Bell’s Theorem, is the hidden variables interpretation that requires local reality. The majority of physicists take the Copenhagen interpretation, which is an instrumentalist approach (not mine, by the way).

 

[reggieM]

Personally, I am more interested in science that produces practical results than anything else.

The scientific method is a philosophical construct. You can’t prove or measure its existence by science.

Now you’re looking for “practical results”. That term can only be understood through philosophy because science cannot tell us what is practical and what is not.

Science can only look at what “is”. And it is limited to that because it is defined philosophically to do so.

You cannot begin science at all without philosophical assumptions. You can’t interpret results without a philosophical basis either.

 

[grannymh]

Personally, I am more interested in science that produces practical results than anything else.

I’m more interested in the philosophy aspect since a liberal arts college philosophy department chair recently expressed his worries that some of his philosophy courses may have to give way to more science courses in the core curriculum.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Science presupposes the existence of objective truth.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

“Why do science?”

This is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[The_Exodus]

This question was settled thousands of years ago by Aristotle when he said, if you whether or not you choose to philosophize, you are philosophizing, any way you go.

Basically, philosophy is the reason for all inquiry, since it is sparked by the wonder at being, and led on to investigate that being.

Furthermore, as soon as you’ve asked the question “can science be had…etc” you are entering, necessarily, into philosophy!

 

[sinnerdexter]

The scientific method is a philosophical construct. You can’t prove or measure its existence by science.

Now you’re looking for “practical results”. That term can only be understood through philosophy because science cannot tell us what is practical and what is not.

Science can only look at what “is”. And it is limited to that because it is defined philosophically to do so.

You cannot begin science at all without philosophical assumptions. You can’t interpret results without a philosophical basis either.

Without providing any rationale or other evidence to support your assertions you might as well be trying to sell me a used car.

 

[Anselm33]

Science presupposes the existence of objective truth.

There are philosophers of science, Bas van Fraassen for one, who are empiricists; they say science is just a game, in which scientists construct models or pictures to try to make sense of the world around them, but the models bear no relation to what reality is. I don’t hold to this view, by the way. (The empiricists cite history and how physical “laws” (theories) change, e.g. no more caloric, no more ether, etc.)

 

[tonyrey]

The scientific method is a philosophical construct. You can’t prove or measure its existence by science.

Now you’re looking for “practical results”. That term can only be understood through philosophy because science cannot tell us what is practical and what is not.

Science can only look at what “is”. And it is limited to that because it is defined philosophically to do so.

You cannot begin science at all without philosophical assumptions. You can’t interpret results without a philosophical basis either.

Indeed. Q.V.Quine pointed out in Two Dogmas of Empiricism that the things science analyses are posits. We infer the existence of physical objects from our perceptions. Science exists in minds not in matter!

 

[tonyrey]

There are philosophers of science, Bas van Fraassen for one, who are empiricists; they say science is just a game, in which scientists construct models or pictures to try to make sense of the world around them, but the models bear no relation to what reality is. I don’t hold to this view, by the way. (The empiricists cite history and how physical “laws” (theories) change, e.g. no more caloric, no more ether, etc.)

I agree with you. If the models bear no relation to what reality is why is science so successful?

 

[reggieM]

Without providing any rationale or other evidence to support your assertions you might as well be trying to sell me a used car.

It might be best for you to question the specific assertions that I offered. What point did you disagree with?

 

[sinnerdexter]

It might be best for you to question the specific assertions that I offered. What point did you disagree with?

Unfortunately I am not a mind reader so there is little for me to respond with since you refuse to explain your assertions. At best I can clarify what remains a mystery to me.

First off, the “scientific method” in and of itself is hotly debated to this day so I have only a vague idea of what you are talking about.

Second, if it is a method then it is a method and not merely a “philosophical construct” (whatever that is). No doubt we could assert that anything and everything is a philosophical construct, but that seems rather counter-productive in the context of the present thread.

Third, the idea that you can’t use a method to prove it’s validity is a vague assertion. I might assert that the best way to tighten a screw is to turn it clockwise, and then proceed to prove the validity of the statement by actually turning the screw clockwise. At some point all such assertions can only ultimately be tested by demonstrating their efficacy.

Forth, the word “practical” has widely know definitions that don’t require philosophy to be understood. Again, we could assert that anything and everything is philosophical, but such an assertion is demonstrably meaningless in the context of the present thread.

Fifth, “science” is a word like any other word and has clear dictionary definitions. To claim that every word in the dictionary has some sort of philosophical definition is, again, a meaningless statement, if for no other reason then that the word “philosophical” itself is a word found in the dictionary. You might as well claim that the definition of every word is somehow “spiritual” for all the meaning such an assertion conveys.

 

[reggieM]

Unfortunately I am not a mind reader so there is little for me to respond with since you refuse to explain your assertions. At best I can clarify what remains a mystery to me.

Ok, there’s a lot here to deal with so I’ll just do a little at a time.

First off, the “scientific method” in and of itself is hotly debated to this day so I have only a vague idea of what you are talking about.

Second, if it is a method then it is a method and not merely a “philosophical construct” (whatever that is). No doubt we could assert that anything and everything is a philosophical construct, but that seems rather counter-productive in the context of the present thread.

Philosophy is an attempt to offer rationally consistent arguments (reasoning) about reality.

When we reduce all the results of reasoned arguments to their origin, we have philosophy as the foundation.

In so doing, we don’t reduce everything and anything to philosophy.

There are many things which are not the result of philosophy (although that is a philosophical statement). Rocks, trees, human experience, observation – these are objects and events. When we reason about those events to explain, categorize, contrast and compare them – then that is first a philosophical exercise.

The rules of science are not an output of science, but of philosophy. We use the philosophical term “methodological naturalism” to define the rules.

Third, the idea that you can’t use a method to prove it’s validity is a vague assertion. I might assert that the best way to tighten a screw is to turn it clockwise, and then proceed to prove the validity of the statement by actually turning the screw clockwise. At some point all such assertions can only ultimately be tested by demonstrating their efficacy.

I don’t follow that so I’ll have to return later.

Forth, the word “practical” has widely know definitions that don’t require philosophy to be understood. Again, we could assert that anything and everything is philosophical, but such an assertion is demonstrably meaningless in the context of the present thread.

Two points – the definition of the word didn’t just appear in nature. Secondly, it’s not the definition but the application of the word.

Is abortion practical? Science cannot tell us. Nor can the dictionary.

Fifth, “science” is a word like any other word and has clear dictionary definitions. To claim that every word in the dictionary has some sort of philosophical definition is, again, a meaningless statement, if for no other reason then that the word “philosophical” itself is a word found in the dictionary. You might as well claim that the definition of every word is somehow “spiritual” for all the meaning such an assertion conveys.

We can look at science. Everything that science studies is matter or the properties of matter. But that doesn’t render everything that science does as meaningless.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Ok, there’s a lot here to deal with so I’ll just do a little at a time.

Philosophy is an attempt to offer rationally consistent arguments (reasoning) about reality.

When we reduce all the results of reasoned arguments to their origin, we have philosophy as the foundation.

In so doing, we don’t reduce everything and anything to philosophy.

There are many things which are not the result of philosophy (although that is a philosophical statement). Rocks, trees, human experience, observation – these are objects and events. When we reason about those events to explain, categorize, contrast and compare them – then that is first a philosophical exercise.

OK, this is similar to the dictionary definition of philosophy but goes a bit beyond:

Philosophy
— n , pl -phies

1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

Note that none of these definitions are nearly as broad as yours. Philosophy is not commonly thought of as including any and all reasoning involving comparing and contrasting things. In fact, that is closer to the definition of reasoning itself:

Reason
–noun
1.
a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.
2.
a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3.
the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.
4.
sound judgment; good sense.
5.
normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.
6.
Logic . a premise of an argument.

The rules of science are not an output of science, but of philosophy. We use the philosophical term “methodological naturalism” to define the rules.

While I agree that philosophy plays a major role in helping to shape and clarify the sciences I don’t agree that every bit of reasoning people make is by definition philosophical and this includes some of the basic reasoning behind the modern sciences. If a child happens to note that feathers fall slower than most objects and comes to the conclusion that it has to do with the air, this act is neither philosophical nor scientific. It is merely an bit of simple observation and reasoning.

Likewise I would say much of what shapes the sciences besides philosophy is even unreasoning. For example, politics, market forces, and countless other things influence the development of the sciences every day. As a Pragmatist myself I believe the usefulness of any science or philosophy plays a major role in its development and long term survival.

Two points – the definition of the word didn’t just appear in nature. Secondly, it’s not the definition but the application of the word.

Dictionaries are, by definition, collections of the commonly used meanings of words. These change constantly and rather naturally. There is no single person or group that decides the definitions of words or that imposes rules upon the masses as to how to decide the meaning of words.

As for their application, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Thus the vast majority of words have multiple definitions and the exact meaning in any given sentence can be construed by the context even if it cannot be found in the dictionary. For example, the meaning of “He’s as dumb as doorknob” can be construed even by someone who doesn’t know the expression because of the context and the fact that no one is actually as dumb as a doorknob.

Is abortion practical? Science cannot tell us. Nor can the dictionary.

We can look at science. Everything that science studies is matter or the properties of matter. But that doesn’t render everything that science does as meaningless.

I already posted the definition of science. If you want to believe science is something other than its commonly used definitions that is fine by me, but my point here is that if we don’t at least accept the common definitions of terms we have no common ground upon which to begin communicating more than grunts and groans.

Asking if science can tell us if abortion is practical is a non sequitur. Again, if words only have meaning in specific contexts then such sweeping statements without any specific context cannot be assessed.

 

[reggieM]

OK, this is similar to the dictionary definition of philosophy but goes a bit beyond:

Philosophy
— n , pl -phies

1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
2. the particular doctrines relating to these issues of some specific individual or school: the philosophy of Descartes
3. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a discipline: the philosophy of law
4. archaic , literary or the investigation of natural phenomena, esp alchemy, astrology, and astronomy
5. any system of belief, values, or tenets
6. a personal outlook or viewpoint

Ok, I disagree. Let’s look at definition #5.

1. any system of belief, values, or tenets

My definition was narrower than that. I said that philosophy was a system of reasoning about reality.

With the dictionary definition you provided, philosophy is any system of … tenets.

That’s the classical, broad definition of philosophy.

I limited my definition to “reality” and that could or could not include something like the philosophy of a fictional world, for example.

But taking the definition as you posted it – science is a system of beliefs, values and tenets. It also includes “observations” which are not “reasoned arguments” as such. So, we don’t say that science equals philosophy, per se. But scientific reasoning is a product of philosophy.

 

[abucs]

I would say that you can collect and synthesise data without a philosophy and that you can conduct experiments without a philosophy all from following the scientific method.

I would say that although you could do it, you probably would only do it if you thought it was going to be of some benefit, which probably involves a philosophy that following the scientific method is beneficial - for some reason.

I would also say that you could report your experimental findings mathematically without a philosophy and mathematically compare those findings to expected results, other results or other objective standards without a philosophy.

But i would say that once you start to interpret your findings in making a connection to how the real world functions then you need a philosophical framework in which to do this.

I think science can invalidate a philosophy but you need a philosophy in order to make sense of science.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Ok, I disagree. Let’s look at definition #5.

My definition was narrower than that. I said that philosophy was a system of reasoning about reality.

With the dictionary definition you provided, philosophy is any system of … tenets.

That’s the classical, broad definition of philosophy.

Now it seems I have to explain how to use a dictionary.

The definition you chose was listed as #5 because it is one of the lesser used. In addition, dictionaries often include examples of the use of words in specific contexts to clarify their meaning. In this case an example might be, “That is my political philosophy” indicating that the word philosophy can be used as euphemism for “beliefs”.

The first definition of philosophy is the more commonly used when discussing philosophy as a discipline.

I limited my definition to “reality” and that could or could not include something like the philosophy of a fictional world, for example.

But taking the definition as you posted it – science is a system of beliefs, values and tenets. It also includes “observations” which are not “reasoned arguments” as such. So, we don’t say that science equals philosophy, per se. But scientific reasoning is a product of philosophy.

Once again here is the definition of science from Dictionary.com

Science
Noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

There is nothing in this definition about “reality” which is a metaphysical concept or “values” which are part of ethics, both of which are sub-disciplines of philosophy. By definition metaphysical concepts, for example, cannot be proven and are therefore not scientific.

 

[reggieM]

Now it seems I have to explain how to use a dictionary.

I can’t see any reason for the personal insult here. We might disagree on this topic, but it’s certainly not worth taking offense with one another. In any case, I’m going to leave it with this …

I was responding to your statement:

Note that **none of these definitions **are nearly as broad as yours.

I’m not going to discuss this in order to try to prove you wrong or humiliate you. I can respect your beliefs and opinions.

If you want to discuss this further, perhaps you could help me understand …

Why is this topic important to you? What difference do these definitions mean in a larger context? Right or wrong - what impact do you perceive that it has either way?

Thanks.

 

[sinnerdexter]

I can’t see any reason for the personal insult here. We might disagree on this topic, but it’s certainly not worth taking offense with one another. In any case, I’m going to leave it with this …

I’m sorry. i didn’t mean to insult you.

What difference do these definitions mean in a larger context? Right or wrong - what impact do you perceive that it has either way?

The difference is that there is such a thing as professional philosophers and not everyone considers themselves a philosopher just because they have “a set of beliefs and tenets.” You are perfectly welcome to your own beliefs, but in conversations I’d suggest sticking to the more commonly used definitions of words whenever reasonable or at least clarifying that you have an uncommon view of the meaning of the word.