A
adawgj
Guest
Does philosophy clash with science?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Only when science makes philosophical statements.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The question is somewhat general. There is a subject called philosophy of science, but some scientists has said that they find it to be an interesting gloss on the history of science, but that it offered no new scientific insights.
Z
z_0101
Guest
science is philosophy and philosophy is science.
PhD = abbreviation for the Latin Philosophiae Doctor
Thus, PhD in Chemistry is a Doctoral degree in the Philosophy of the Science of Chemistry.
etc…
PhD = abbreviation for the Latin Philosophiae Doctor
Thus, PhD in Chemistry is a Doctoral degree in the Philosophy of the Science of Chemistry.
etc…
D
DoGodsBidding
Guest
D
davidv
Guest
How does science make any kind of statements? Is science a person that can make statements?
My answer to the OP is:
There is no clash.
The clash occurs between philosophers and scientists, not their respective fields.
H
Hans_W
Guest
It’s not that simple. Until 150 years ago all the disciplines we call sciences today fell under the umbrella of philosophy: “natural philosophy”. Natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology et. etc.) are independent now. That’s where the PhD comes from.
No, there is no clash whatsoever. There is a huge discipline of philosophy of science, but many philosophers specialise further, for example philosophy of biology, philosophy of mathematics etc.
B
buffalo
Guest
No. That is not what I meant. I meant the scientific establishment.
P
petra22
Guest
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
Bit like does the right hand know what the left hand is doing ?
Does it really matter, because there still attached by the body of the universe
Does it really matter, because there still attached by the body of the universe
L
Leo2014
Guest
Yes it does, philosophy has clashed with science through the ages. I am including theology as part of philosophy because even the study of the metaphysical encompasses so many schools of thought.
However, to over simplify, science has primarily dealt with the physical while philosophy deals with the metaphysical. But there are overlapping areas such as cosmology. Once science started theorizing on the origins of life they started to conflict with ideas that were taught by our religious leaders. Through the millenniums, science has just become a little too confident that every question can be eventually answered pragmatically. But, even (Stephen) Hawkins is starting to doubt we will ever have a “theory of everything”.
Science has improved our lives in many vase areas, but it also introduced ideas that counter religious thought. Atheism came out of science disproving or conflicting with our religious teachings. Darwinism was the result of biological patterns that Charles discovered. He put together a theorem as to how life could have possibly have evolved. But in Darwin’s personal life, he encountered a period of disparity and became disenchanted with God. When you juxtaposed his theorem on evolution and his personal decision to walk away from God, we see the start of the conflicts we see today. Hence, science moved away from what we have been taught about cosmology.
These conflicts continue with our thinkers of today; even Richard Dawkins who is a professed atheist has fellow scientist that counter his thinking that science can answer all our questions.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Sorry Leo, but you don’t seem to have the foggiest idea what science is.
Z
z_0101
Guest
Hans,
You only make it that difficult.
'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name?** that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;**
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself. (2.2.38-49)
We only use the distinction of “Natural Sciences” as it refers to C/B/P/M to clarify the difference between them and say Liberal arts. This is no different than classifying foot-ware into tennis shoes, deck shoes, cowboy boots, and snow boots. The natural sciences still use the standard model of philosophy that they were rooted in thousands of years ago. Indeed, we have changed our model of the structure of an atom several times… why… because the facts didn’t fit the observations… then a new set of arguments, a hypothesis, testing, and so forth - no different than any other science, nor of that of ancient or modern philosophy…
Perhaps I mis-understand your argument about the field of The philosophy of science and the further specialization. Neither of which support a change in the view that science is philosophy and philosophy is science. That would be like saying a tennis shoe is no longer considered foot-ware because it is a specialized device used for playing tennis on a particular… (…) Even “Philosophers” in the non-natural sciences often specialize in particular fields/sub-classifications, it doesn’t mean that they are no-longer “Philosophers” and that their field is no-longer a philosophy… so such argument also does not apply to the natural sciences and their specialization in support of saying they are not a philosophy.
Perhaps you should read this - kind of basic, but would provide a common reference for all following this thread without needing to go back to school to re-learn the topic.
of science**philosophy **
(…) there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of **philosophy **is handily called the **philosophy **of science. (…)
A whole field of science dedicated to studying the philosophy that drives science… only the human soul could dream of such a question and then pursue it…
I dare say that all of the following will be quite amused that they are no-longer working with and studying the philosophy of natural sciences or, if I understand correctly (and I’m not sure I followed your logic), by your presumption, even considered philosophers of their fields and the related studies :
Aristotle (384-322 BC), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Rene Descartes (1596–1650), Piere Duhem (1861–1916) (Physicist and philosopher) , Carl Hempel (1905-1997), Karl Popper (1924-1994), Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994), Evelyn Fox Keller (1936-) (Physicist, historian, and one of the pioneers of feminist philosophy of science), Elliott Sober (foundations of evolutionary biology - contributor to the biological theory of group selection), Nancy Cartwright (1944-) — Philosopher of physics known for her claim that the laws of physics “lie” — i.e., that the laws of physics only apply in highly idealized circumstances. She has also worked on causation, interpretations of probability and quantum mechanics, and the metaphysical foundations of modern science. (please refer to the above link for context and refence)
No my dear neighbor, only the desire by a small subgroup, whose agenda I don’t understand nor care to, to dismiss the Natural Sciences from the realm of so called enlightened study does any distinction exists… and it’s only within their minds as the field of science as a consensus rejects them - they are not in communion so to speak.
Z
z_0101
Guest
just a post example:
The philosophy of Chemistry itself has separated into the base fields of Inorganic, Organic, and Analytical.
These base fields have further separated into other sub-fields such as Biochemistry, Metallurgy, and chromatography.
and so forth.
No-one in the Field of Chemistry would state that due to the specialization of the fields they are no-longer part of the philosophy of Chemistry or that the person that has specialized in such a sub-discipline not a Chemist.
So I argue that the same holds true when it comes to the attempt to find some clash between science and philosophy…
science is philosophy and philosophy is science.
The philosophy of Chemistry itself has separated into the base fields of Inorganic, Organic, and Analytical.
These base fields have further separated into other sub-fields such as Biochemistry, Metallurgy, and chromatography.
and so forth.
No-one in the Field of Chemistry would state that due to the specialization of the fields they are no-longer part of the philosophy of Chemistry or that the person that has specialized in such a sub-discipline not a Chemist.
So I argue that the same holds true when it comes to the attempt to find some clash between science and philosophy…
science is philosophy and philosophy is science.
L
Leo2014
Guest
Hans,
I guess you will need to enlighten me?
The topic is; Is there a clash between philosophy and science?
I say Yes and provided names and examples of why I believe it is so. But you managed to digress into attempting to explain advance degrees that is apparent that you don’t possess. Than the last remark I see from you is; No, there is no clash whatsoever. I can only think that you made that statement in sarcasm? Certainly you have encountered the debate between creation and evolution?
I don’t know the last time you walked across a college campus, but philosophy and science are split into two different departments often in separate physical structures. A biology teacher would not consider themselves a philosopher and a philosopher would not attempt to go and teach biology.
However, you appear to see no “clash” between the two disciplines? Can you provide us some examples were this harmony occurs? Yes, millenniums ago we had “Renaissance” men such as Galileo. But even among his contemporaries we started to see a great divide.
H
Hans_W
Guest
Actually, the last time I walked across a university campus was last Wednesday. I am currently busy writing a PhD thesis on a topic within philosophy of science. And I also have a PhD in science and many years of research in chemistry behind me.
It was not my intention to be sarcastic, but your general remarks on science, philosophy, evolution and “Charles” told me that you have certain fixed and preconceived ideas which are not quite correct.
There are currently two threads on this forum, which are quite active with more than 500 posts each. If you are interested in these, I suggest you could follow them. It shouldn’t be difficult to find them, but let me know if you have difficulties. They are called:
“Intelligent Design” and
“What is this ‘scientific method’ you all speak of”
H
Hans_W
Guest
You sound like a philosopher yourself. Currently working on a thesis on a topic within philosophy of science, perhaps I should tap into your wisdom.
Coming back to the OP’s question: no, there is no clash between philosophy and science. They actually work together. Mind you, if you work as a scientists, you don’t really need to concern yourself with philosophy. And if you are a philosopher, there are plenty of topics you can study which are not related to science, such as logic, ethics, religion, education, literature, politics etc. etc.
L
Leo2014
Guest
I hope that does not mean you skipped class the last few days…:angel1:
My apology, however the topic is a very general questions and speaking within the confines of generality; the two schools do clash. I don’t think it was the intention of the author of the question to digress into the many subdivision within the two disciplines.
You being a student can confirm that your professors in science do distinguish themselves differently from other departments and that would include philosophy. I am remaining with the realm of generality.
I was just pointing out that it’s absurd to state that there is some kind of harmony between the two disciplines. It is man’s struggle to find harmony for which he never will while on earth…you read your Bible. But, it does not matter the topic, in my practice, I am confronted with resolving conflicts all day long! Many times there is substantial information supporting one position and yet we still encounter confrontation. Now, you want to tell me that in an arena were many ideas are simply theoretical we are not having any conflicts? That is a delusional statement.
If you were to find this topic as a headline the next time you view your paper; the general population will immediately conclude it is an article on the confrontations between those who seek their answers in science and those that look towards a spiritual means. Again, we are speaking in generalities.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
She claims that laws such as Newton’s law of gravitation apply in highly idealized circumstances. But these laws or models are true in the real world, say for example, for describing the force between the earth and the moon.
A
adawgj
Guest
Lots of yes and no’s interesting.
- Status