The bridge between philosophy and science

  • Thread starter Thread starter thinkandmull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thinkandmull

Guest
Mr. Richard Dawkins, in one of his books, made a challenge for people to prove the value of philosophy to him. He said essentially that philosophy is different for each person and culture. In dividing people in scientifically minded and philosophically minded, he attempted to put all philosophical questions outside the scope of rational inquiry, except for those who may happen to dabble in the strange art of philosophy. Wisdom then would appear to be relative. Without trying to refute this by the common attack of “if relativism is true, then there is no truth in what you say about relativism”, I’d like us on this thread to try to bridge the gap between “science thinking” and "philosophical statements, so that through dialogue people like minded as Dawkins will be forced to consider that philosophy is more than just mental exercises, or mystical experience that cannot be communicate. Please post whatever comes to mind, however trivial
 
thinkandmull said:
Mr. Richard Dawkins, in one of his books, made a challenge for people to prove the value of philosophy to him. He said essentially that philosophy is different for each person and culture. In dividing people in scientifically minded and philosophically minded, he attempted to put all philosophical questions outside the scope of rational inquiry, except for those who may happen to dabble in the strange art of philosophy. Wisdom then would appear to be relative. Without trying to refute this by the common attack of “if relativism is true, then there is no truth in what you say about relativism”, I’d like us on this thread to try to bridge the gap between “science thinking” and "philosophical statements, so that through dialogue people like minded as Dawkins will be forced to consider that philosophy is more than just mental exercises, or mystical experience that cannot be communicate. Please post whatever comes to mind, however trivial
Click to expand...
How does him characterize philosophical thinking, Thinkandmull?
 
As I recall, he wrote that someone had stuck it to him that he didn’t know the differences between Duns Scotus’s epistemology and Aquinas’s. Dawkins went on to ask “what the heck philosophy has added to human knowledge”, or something to that effect. Can positivism such as this be breached, or is it a fortress they must deal with in their own lives?
 
thinkandmull said:
As I recall, he wrote that someone had stuck it to him that he didn’t know the differences between Duns Scotus’s epistemology and Aquinas’s. Dawkins went on to ask “what the heck philosophy has added to human knowledge”, or something to that effect. Can positivism such as this be breached, or is it a fortress they must deal with in their own lives?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but has him defined “philosophical thinking” somewhere? I don’t know Dawkins; but if he is a scientist and he rejects philosophical thinking surely he has defined it somewhere, hasn’t him?
 
The idea for this thread came from the other one on here Why did the Pharisees not humble themselves before Christ?: An Investigation, and seeing part of The Passion on tv. Jesus as a man had faith in his metaphysical thoughts, which I am sure were united with mystical insight. His enemies were more confident in material existence, and a whip. Hence I thought this could be a good thread
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Yeah, but has him defined “philosophical thinking” somewhere? I don’t know Dawkins; but if he is a scientist and he rejects philosophical thinking surely he has defined it somewhere, hasn’t him?
Click to expand...
He lumps philosophy in with religion. If it has nothing to do with the material world or human interaction, he finds that he can ignore ontology or other philosophy without feeling like he is missing out on any human knowledge
 
This could possibly have been the line of scrimmage against St. Catherine of Alexandria. Tradition says an emperor summoned fifty of the best pagan philosophers and orators to debate her, but couldn’t stump her
 
Let me get the ball rolling,

Ideas have a certain existence. So what are we to make of the idea of God? Where does the idea get it’s substance? From us…? in a way. But do ideas have to correspond to something in reality, or at least certain thoughts? Science is a donkey when it comes to a question like that
 
thinkandmull said:
As I recall, he wrote that someone had stuck it to him that he didn’t know the differences between Duns Scotus’s epistemology and Aquinas’s. Dawkins went on to ask “what the heck philosophy has added to human knowledge”, or something to that effect. Can positivism such as this be breached, or is it a fortress they must deal with in their own lives?
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific? I’m not keen on trying to refute something out of context.
 
Imagine a reality show in which different discipline present there findings in a 5 minute presentation. What could philosophy say that cannot be dismissed by dismissed by science as private mystical mental exercises?
 
I forget what the technical term is, but people have body maps. The right side of the brain controls the left, just to give an example. But how do we know Adam and Eve had the same figure mind body shape that we do? That’s phenomenologically untouched by sciences’s psychology
 
thinkandmull said:
Imagine a reality show in which different discipline present there findings in a 5 minute presentation. What could philosophy say that cannot be dismissed by dismissed by science as private mystical mental exercises?
Click to expand...
philosophy bridges the gap between form and function. the tiny particle that cannot be divided further and its physical connection with its source or being, which must be real also and have that particles function in its heart.
 
thinkandmull said:
Mr. Richard Dawkins, in one of his books, made a challenge for people to prove the value of philosophy to him. He said essentially that philosophy is different for each person and culture. In dividing people in scientifically minded and philosophically minded, he attempted to put all philosophical questions outside the scope of rational inquiry, except for those who may happen to dabble in the strange art of philosophy. Wisdom then would appear to be relative. Without trying to refute this by the common attack of “if relativism is true, then there is no truth in what you say about relativism”, I’d like us on this thread to try to bridge the gap between “science thinking” and "philosophical statements, so that through dialogue people like minded as Dawkins will be forced to consider that philosophy is more than just mental exercises, or mystical experience that cannot be communicate. Please post whatever comes to mind, however trivial
Click to expand...
I don’t know what got Dawkins started in science, as I’ve never bothered to read enough about him. I’m really not interested to be honest.

But it’s quite clear now that Dawkin’s current theology is the Theory of Evolution. That’s the Philosophy he lives by.

Science is merely the disciplined observation of natural phenomena and the quantitative analysis of the results.

But you don’t live by it. Nobody says my philosophy of life is that the pH of pure water is exactly 7.0, or the chemical formula for water is H2O.

For any scientist to live, he or she will have their own philosophy of life. Science may figure within it, but they don’t live by the rule of science.

So Dawkins is a hypocrite. He has a philosophy of his own.
 
Just after sending off the post above, I went looking for jokes about Ludwig Wittgenstein, profound philosopher and one time classmate of Adolf Hitler.

google.com.au/search?q=jokes+about+wittgenstein&biw=1440&bih=736&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiEkoy4_IDKAhWk4qYKHTEVAW4QsAQINw#imgrc=swHXzomv5SIJQM%3A

The jokes were pretty slim pickings, but I did find this salutary quote by WIttgenstein, which I thought was relevant to Dawkin’s query. Maybe he should read it himself sometime, and try to refute it.

“Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.”
 
Bob_Crowley said:
The jokes were pretty slim pickings, but I did find this salutary quote by WIttgenstein, which I thought was relevant to Dawkin’s query. Maybe he should read it himself sometime, and try to refute it.

“Even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.”
Click to expand...
I suspect Dawkins would feel this reinforces his point. He would just say, “See, I told you that philosophy has contributed nothing. After millennia philosophers are still grappling with the same questions.”

I think philosophy is less concerned with knowledge and more concerned with the role knowledge plays in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t answer the questions in scientific disciplines, but it helps guide the disciplines themselves.

Example: Shortly before quantum mechanics was developed, physicists were grappling with a philosophical question of their own. Ever since Galileo it was believed that scientific models had to offer us a nice intuitive picture of how particles move. Heisenberg and other physicists eventually realized that no such model could explain the mounting issues of the old theories, so they began to accept theories that had no nice geometric interpretations. Particles can occupy multiple places simultaneously? Sure, so long as that idea lets us predict the outcomes of experiments, says Heisenberg.

What happened at the birth of quantum mechanics was so remarkable because the scientific community gradually changed several definitions. Concessions about explanations, models, and epistemology were made that would have been unacceptable in the days of Newton and even Einstein. This philosophical shift has guided physics ever since. Mathematics has undergone similar shifts in which axiomatic systems it allows, as seen in the acceptance of non-Euclidean geometries and the foundations of set theory.
 
You said:
philosophy bridges the gap between form and function. the tiny particle that cannot be divided further and its physical connection with its source or being, which must be real also and have that particles function in its heart.
Click to expand...
Particles can be continually divided. It doesn’t really have anything to do with an invisible substance, yet the bridge between philosophy and physics might be phenomenology, the asking of questions until a solution becomes necessary in an individual life
 
Mr. Dawkins is doing philosophy in all that he says in the OP. His challenge, to me, just demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what philosophy, as a discipline, is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top