It is also amazing how many philosophers, after years and even decades of study, do not have the answers. Take for example the question of the correct philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics.Amazing how many people have the answers, without knowing anything about philosophy, nor about science!
I am probably not your average student. After some 30 years in scientific research I decided that I need to know more. So I started to study philosophy. That was 10 years ago.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.
Bertrand Russell, one of my favourite philosophers has a very good description of what philosophy does:It is also amazing how many philosophers, after years and even decades of study, do not have the answers. Take for example the question of the correct philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics.
If you are going to go with Bertrand Russell: “Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom,” then this is an admission that philosophers do not yet agree upon the reason why quantum mechanics works and gives the excellent results that it does in the subatomic realm.Bertrand Russell, one of my favourite philosophers has a very good description of what philosophy does:
“Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect”.
Philosophy looks at what knowledge is, the different types of knowledge. Does science give you truths? absolute truths? How does reasoning come in? The demarcation problem (what distinguishes science from pseudoscience). How do you prove/disprove a theory? What is a theory, a law, a hypothesis? Is there a conflict between science and religion? The role of assumptions in science.
It is not for philosophers to judge scientific theories, only scientists can do that.If you are going to go with Bertrand Russell: “Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom,” then this is an admission that philosophers do not yet agree upon the reason why quantum mechanics works and gives the excellent results that it does in the subatomic realm.
Yes, that’s part of what philosophy of science is concerned about.
- Does science give you truths? Scientists can provide the knowledge which will get a man on the moon. I doubt that armchair philosophy could provide this knowledge. Science provides us with a working model that can be used to provide all kinds of useful information about the physical world around us. The working models given by science are not absolute, but can be modified or replaced by better models in the future. Take for example, Newtonian gravity which, although it does give excellent results, was nevertheless superseded by the more accurate General theory of relativity.
Some people see a conflict between science and religion. In my thesis I am looking into some aspect of tis problem. Again, philosophy looks at religion and philosophy looks at science and establishes commonalities, differences and if there are contradictions. Philosophy stands sort of in between science and religion.
- Is there a conflict between science and religion? In some cases, there is no intersection between the two fields of knowledge, and so there is no contradiction. However, in other cases there are contradictions. Take for example the question of miracles. Scientists will say that some of the miracles occur because of psychosomatic conditions or other natural occurring phenomena and can be explained by appeal to scientific principles, but the religious person will appeal to a supernatural cause.
No philosophy, does not clash with science, providing the philosopher has sufficient scientific knowledge. If the philosopher has no scientific knowledge, which includes Plato and Aristotle, as they lived before modern science existed, then there is a large clash…Does philosophy clash with science?
Hans,I can only see science and philosophy working hand in hand.
Partly true, but not completely true. Bastiaan Cornelis van Fraassen (born 5 April 1941) is the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University, and has been teaching courses in the philosophy of science, philosophical logic and the role of models in scientific practice. He wrote the books Quantum Mechanics: An Empiricist View, Oxford University Press, 1991 and Laws and Symmetry, Oxford University Press 1989.It is not for philosophers to judge scientific theories, only scientists can do that…
Science was not created, science always was, and is being discovered bit by bit.Science was created as a discipline separate from philosophy. The philosophers of science, such as Francis Bacon in the English speaking world, created a whole new mind set about what it means to be a scientist as opposed to a philosopher. The protocols of science are different from those of philosophy. While logic is required both of philosophy and science, particular kinds of logic are more useful in science than in philosophy. While the philosopher is supposed to have some authority in the areas of induction and deduction, the scientists should have even greater authority in the field of mathematical logic. The pure mathematician is more of a logician than a scientist, but the principles of mathematics have opened up tremendous opportunities in the observation and analysis of natural phenomenon. Isaac Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics would not have been possible without the application of mathematical logic. The same for Einstein’s theories of Relativity. Often scientists, however, dispute the philosophies of Newton and Einstein, both of whom found no conflict between the ideas of science and the existence of an intelligent Deity governing all of creation.
Since you are writing your PhD thesis on this topic, what is your opinion of the book by the Anglican priest and theoretical physicist, John Polkinghorne called:“Serious Talk, Science and Religion in Dialogue.” Some might consider it to be lightweight, but it goes into a number of interesting issues. Also, being both an Anglican priest and a theoretical physicist, Mr. Polkinghorne has the qualifications to discuss this question.Yes, that’s part of what philosophy of science is concerned about.
Some people see a conflict between science and religion. In my thesis I am looking into some aspect of tis problem. Again, philosophy looks at religion and philosophy looks at science and establishes commonalities, differences and if there are contradictions. Philosophy stands sort of in between science and religion.
Philosophy does not have as many meanings as God, but almost. Thus any book, on philosophy, is merely the opinion of the writer.Since you are writing your PhD thesis on this topic, what is your opinion of the book by the Anglican priest and theoretical physicist, John Polkinghorne called:“Serious Talk, Science and Religion in Dialogue.” Some might consider it to be lightweight, but it goes into a number of interesting issues. Also, being both an Anglican priest and a theoretical physicist, Mr. Polkinghorne has the qualifications to discuss this question.
Yes, science always existed. It did not always exist as a discipline separate from philosophy with its own recognized protocols. It was the philosophers who settled on what the protocols should be. Scientists accepted them from the philosophers, and that was concurrent with the creation of the scientific revolution in the 17th century.Science was not created, science always was, and is being discovered bit by bit.
The first scientist, sharpened a stick, with a stone and came down from a tree, for good to walk upright.
The first sentence is nonsense.Philosophy does not have as many meanings as God, but almost. Thus any book, on philosophy, is merely the opinion of the writer.
The first sentence is logical, but to a closed mind, it may seem like nonsense. You can prove me wrong, on the second sentence, by naming the philosophy book, that does not contain the opinions of one or more writers.The first sentence is nonsense.
The second sentence does not seem connected logically to the first sentence.
Have you ever studied logic? If you are a college student, I recommend taking one.
I think very highly of Polkinghorne. I can also recommend Stephen Barr (a Catholic) “Modern Physics and Ancient Faith”, and many others.Since you are writing your PhD thesis on this topic, what is your opinion of the book by the Anglican priest and theoretical physicist, John Polkinghorne called:“Serious Talk, Science and Religion in Dialogue.” Some might consider it to be lightweight, but it goes into a number of interesting issues. Also, being both an Anglican priest and a theoretical physicist, Mr. Polkinghorne has the qualifications to discuss this question.
That may be because, as Lawrence Krauss has said, no one understands quantum mechanics. Not only that but it seems that few even agree what it means. See plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/ .It is also amazing how many philosophers, after years and even decades of study, do not have the answers. Take for example the question of the correct philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics.