A
alitaptap
Guest
That’s why science degrees are called “PhD,” which means doctor of philosophy.
Comment?
Comment?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
I do respectfully disagree with your point of view. Not that this is a topic I feel passionately about one way or the other, but for the sake of discussion, allow me to explain my thoughts.
Up to a certain point, there are similarities between philosophy and science. To strip them down, you can ultimately say each is a method for finding knowledge. However, the processes are very different for accomplishing these ends.
Science uses empirical knowledge, obtained through observation or experimentation, and applies it to various studies. For example, I can tell you water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit by taking water at room temperature and lowering the temperature in 1 degree increments until freezing begins. But we can’t say scientific studies are ‘tangible’ because they aren’t always (i.e. theoretical quantum physics). But those studies are still based in empirical knowledge and applied on the broad sense, and the term ‘theoretical’ exists not because it is fictional, it is just that we have no current way of measuring.
Philosophy, on the other hand, searches for answers using ideas and reasoning that can be based in empirical knowledge, but does not have to be. Science cannot explain how one create’s a perfect society, but by building a logical argument off of the needs of a community, the physical and occupational roles of citizens, and the acceptance of commonly held beliefs, Plato was able to create an ‘ideal society’ in The Republic.
As for the name of the degree, I don’t know where that practice started, but I can venture a guess. When one obtains a Bachelor’s degree, such as in accounting (what I have), I have sufficient knowledge to obtain a job. If I were to return to school and earn a Master’s degree, I would have exceptional knowledge on the subject matter. Still further, if I were to obtain a PhD in accounting, then I would have the ability to not only know and master all of the work, but to have the knowledge to speculate on accounting theory.
Let me break it down in terms of mathematics. Obviously, the argument isn’t ‘to scale’ but I think it can serve the purpose:
Bachelor’s Degree: Can apply 4 basic functions (add, subtract, multiply, divide) to solve algebraic equations and calculus problems in time.
Master’s Degree: Can immediately recognize solutions to algebraic and calculus equations and understands what the solutions ‘mean’.
PhD in Mathematics: Contains all ability of a master’s degree, but also begins theorizing why algebraic and calculus functions behave the way they do, using finite examples to discuss infinite series/equations.
You see, at a certain point of schooling, you are able to take empirical knowledge and apply it to the purely theoretical. Not in the ‘theoretical’ sense explained above in the paragraph on science, but in the truly ‘immeasurable’ sense, and that is where one begins to ‘philosophize’.
Up to a certain point, there are similarities between philosophy and science. To strip them down, you can ultimately say each is a method for finding knowledge. However, the processes are very different for accomplishing these ends.
Science uses empirical knowledge, obtained through observation or experimentation, and applies it to various studies. For example, I can tell you water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit by taking water at room temperature and lowering the temperature in 1 degree increments until freezing begins. But we can’t say scientific studies are ‘tangible’ because they aren’t always (i.e. theoretical quantum physics). But those studies are still based in empirical knowledge and applied on the broad sense, and the term ‘theoretical’ exists not because it is fictional, it is just that we have no current way of measuring.
Philosophy, on the other hand, searches for answers using ideas and reasoning that can be based in empirical knowledge, but does not have to be. Science cannot explain how one create’s a perfect society, but by building a logical argument off of the needs of a community, the physical and occupational roles of citizens, and the acceptance of commonly held beliefs, Plato was able to create an ‘ideal society’ in The Republic.
As for the name of the degree, I don’t know where that practice started, but I can venture a guess. When one obtains a Bachelor’s degree, such as in accounting (what I have), I have sufficient knowledge to obtain a job. If I were to return to school and earn a Master’s degree, I would have exceptional knowledge on the subject matter. Still further, if I were to obtain a PhD in accounting, then I would have the ability to not only know and master all of the work, but to have the knowledge to speculate on accounting theory.
Let me break it down in terms of mathematics. Obviously, the argument isn’t ‘to scale’ but I think it can serve the purpose:
Bachelor’s Degree: Can apply 4 basic functions (add, subtract, multiply, divide) to solve algebraic equations and calculus problems in time.
Master’s Degree: Can immediately recognize solutions to algebraic and calculus equations and understands what the solutions ‘mean’.
PhD in Mathematics: Contains all ability of a master’s degree, but also begins theorizing why algebraic and calculus functions behave the way they do, using finite examples to discuss infinite series/equations.
You see, at a certain point of schooling, you are able to take empirical knowledge and apply it to the purely theoretical. Not in the ‘theoretical’ sense explained above in the paragraph on science, but in the truly ‘immeasurable’ sense, and that is where one begins to ‘philosophize’.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Science is in some ways a branch of philosophy. This becomes particularly evident when studying the philosophy of science. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science However, philosophy encompasses many branches of knowledge, including science, law, logic, mathematics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics, history, etc. Each of these branches of knowledge has some elements of a philosophical foundation.
I like to define philosophy as the search for insights in *every *branch of knowledge. Such insights cannot be achieved without a dedication to truth, and the belief that objective truth can be obtained in the first place. Wisdom is the end goal of philosophy. What is the highest wisdom? Having a sense of what to do, along with when, where, how, and why it is to be done. To this kind of wisdom all the other branches of knowledge are subservient.
I like to define philosophy as the search for insights in *every *branch of knowledge. Such insights cannot be achieved without a dedication to truth, and the belief that objective truth can be obtained in the first place. Wisdom is the end goal of philosophy. What is the highest wisdom? Having a sense of what to do, along with when, where, how, and why it is to be done. To this kind of wisdom all the other branches of knowledge are subservient.
J
Janet1983
Guest
It’s actually the other way around. Science did not always mean natural sciences. Until the 18th century (if not longer) science did include philosophy and theology. In the Middle Ages theology was seen as the best of all sciences…That’s why science degrees are called “PhD,” which means doctor of philosophy.
Comment?
It’s a recent development that science is reduced to disciplined empirical investigations of the natural world.
What we call science today used to be called “natural philosophy” by the way…
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
The human ability to reason creates many tools.
Reason creates logic.
Reason and logic created math.
Math is a tool that science uses.
Human reason also created philosophy.
Historically, philosophy and science where developed together.
In the last 300-400 years, they sometimes go their own ways, sometimes.
Reason creates logic.
Reason and logic created math.
Math is a tool that science uses.
Human reason also created philosophy.
Historically, philosophy and science where developed together.
In the last 300-400 years, they sometimes go their own ways, sometimes.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Jim
*Historically, philosophy and science where developed together.
In the last 300-400 years, they sometimes go their own ways, sometimes.*
So true. When I have debated scientists, it dawns on me after a while how limited their reasoning skills are; yes, they can be superb reasoners in their own little discipline, but helpless as babes in the woods when they have to reason philosophically. Einstein was famous for making embarrassing pronouncements on topics outside his expertise.
It is the mistake of science to have deliberately viewed itself as separate and above (superior to) every kind of metaphysical thought. Indeed, the sciences have become so introspective that they can hardly get outside themselves to look at the whole of knowledge. This is evident in the fact that you can hardly find a man (or woman) of science today who can project the image of the Renaissance integration of knowledge. While Isaac Newton could be declared the greatest scientist of all time, very few inside the scientific community know that he was a dedicated biblical scholar who believed in the mystery of creation and believed that mystery could be deciphered by studying scriptures. Newton, according to recent studies of his notes left behind, wrote more reflections on the Bible than on science.
Can you imagine any scientist today with the same breadth of knowledge encompassing the natural and supernatural realms of thought?
*Historically, philosophy and science where developed together.
In the last 300-400 years, they sometimes go their own ways, sometimes.*
So true. When I have debated scientists, it dawns on me after a while how limited their reasoning skills are; yes, they can be superb reasoners in their own little discipline, but helpless as babes in the woods when they have to reason philosophically. Einstein was famous for making embarrassing pronouncements on topics outside his expertise.
It is the mistake of science to have deliberately viewed itself as separate and above (superior to) every kind of metaphysical thought. Indeed, the sciences have become so introspective that they can hardly get outside themselves to look at the whole of knowledge. This is evident in the fact that you can hardly find a man (or woman) of science today who can project the image of the Renaissance integration of knowledge. While Isaac Newton could be declared the greatest scientist of all time, very few inside the scientific community know that he was a dedicated biblical scholar who believed in the mystery of creation and believed that mystery could be deciphered by studying scriptures. Newton, according to recent studies of his notes left behind, wrote more reflections on the Bible than on science.
Can you imagine any scientist today with the same breadth of knowledge encompassing the natural and supernatural realms of thought?
M
MarianD
Guest
I always considered philosophy to be thinking in an abstract manner while science is observing and deducing from concrete objects.
If a philosopher and a scientist saw a rock…
The philosopher would say: “I wonder why this rock is here?”
The scientist would say: “I wonder how this rock got here?”
If a philosopher and a scientist saw a rock…
The philosopher would say: “I wonder why this rock is here?”
The scientist would say: “I wonder how this rock got here?”
T
TheTrueCentrist
Guest
To a philosopher, science is just another religion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.