Is science a belief?

[tolman]

Well, there are philosophers, and then there are once-half-read-an-article-on-QM "You merely learned things, whereas I learned how to think" philosophers (or philosophy students).

For all that they may go on about the subjectivity of reality, the latter kind of philosopher still seem to act as if reality does exist and is highly stable and predictable.
In fact, if they didn't act as if their philosophy was pointless, they'd probably be dead.

[Tim the Mage]

Well, there are philosophers, and then there are once-half-read-an-article-on-QM "You merely learned things, whereas I learned how to think" philosophers (or philosophy students).

For all that they may go on about the subjectivity of reality, the latter kind of philosopher still seem to act as if reality does exist and is highly stable and predictable.
In fact, if they didn't act as if their philosophy was pointless, they'd probably be dead.

The problem with philosophy is its accessibility (despite the best endeavours of philosophers). It takes skills and knowledge to design and build a bridge that doesn't fall down but any idiot can create a philosophy (and plenty have) claiming to reveal the eternal verities. However, there is a real point to philosophy that does lie somewhere in the 'learning how to reason' area - people with some appreciation of moral philosophy do appear to handle debate better. Maybe they just know better words?

[Pebble]

Inductive reasoning got us out of caves.......something philosophers always forget.......

Science is more rational than philosophy, becasue it has on average consistently outperformed the latter! I suppose enviornmentalists and the victims of total war, might transiently (at least) beg to diffir.

The problem with science is that it is relatively indifferent to human motivation, probably because we have rather poor tools to evaluate the nature of conciousness etc. This leaves the field open to the fruit bat elements of society. Perhaps if psychology were a rigorous science, philosophy would be relegated to the fringes, like astronomy has done with astrology?

[tolman]

Studying philosophy can certainly teach some people how to think more clearly, but then studying lots of other things can also teach lots of other people how to think more clearly.

I do sometimes wonder if philosophy is maybe something that people shouldn't be allowed to study until after they've really come to grips with some other field.

[Tim the Mage]

Science is more rational than philosophy, becasue it has on average consistently outperformed the latter! I suppose enviornmentalists and the victims of total war, might transiently (at least) beg to diffir.

The problem with science is that it is relatively indifferent to human motivation, probably because we have rather poor tools to evaluate the nature of conciousness etc. This leaves the field open to the fruit bat elements of society. Perhaps if psychology were a rigorous science, philosophy would be relegated to the fringes, like astronomy has done with astrology?

My head hurts small stone... Rationality is, in itself a matter of philosophical discourse - after all (and please don't take this as too much of a challenge) I can't be sure that what you mean by rational and what I mean by rational are the same.

Pure science bumps into philosophy all the time (which is a good thing) and the idea of empiricism is but a philosophical construct. But then I'm not a scientist so what would I know? But economists do:

http://www.stanford.edu/~hammond/ratEcon.pdf

For me, you confidence in science is, surely, more of a confidence in engineering. And I prefer the engineer's response: "I don't care what your precious theory says, will the damn thing fly?"

[Pebble]

For me, you confidence in science is, surely, more of a confidence in engineering. And I prefer the engineer's response: "I don't care what your precious theory says, will the damn thing fly?"

Pharmaceuticals: will the drug work
Toxicology: what is the LD 50 of this agent
Chemistry: Will these compounds react, to form what etc.
Physics: will Mars be there when the craft arrives
Medicine: will relieving this obstruction to blood flow improve organ function


etc. etc

[Matt]

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

[Pebble]

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

Red rag to bulls surely: Going from Plato thinking experimenting should be shunned in favour of thinking a problem through, to the current vogue for thought experiment, and comparing this to the rigors of empiricism, seems a stretch. It is a bit like saying that science is a subset of human activity, technically true, but misses the point.

[farmersboy]

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

Well I never knew that - it had nothing to do with pointless conjecture on such drivel as the meaning of life.

[Matt]

Well I never knew that - it had nothing to do with pointless conjecture on such drivel as the meaning of life.

That I would file under metaphysics - another branch of philosophy. However other branches of philosophy seem more relavent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso..._of_philosophy

[farmersboy]

That I would file under metaphysics - another branch of philosophy. However other branches of philosophy seem more relavent.

Yes, they seem to cover more practical things.

[Cuddles]

Physics: will Mars be there when the craft arrives

Depends whether you remember that feet and metres are different.

You know I've always thought of science as a branch of philosophy just as biology is a branch of science or caclulus is a branch of mathematics. And since I mention mathematics I think of that too as a branch of philosophy.

I disagree. Biology is a branch of science becase it uses scientific tools to study a certain subset of the things science can study. Calculus is a branch of mathematics because it uses mathematical tools to study a subset of the things maths can study. Science is not a branch of philosophy because it usese many tools that simply do not exist in philosophy, and can study areas that have nothing to do with philosophy. In addition, philosophy can exist independently of anything else, but science requires knowledge.

When it comes down to it, philosophy is just thinking, and those thoughts often have nothing to do with reality, or simply have no consequences whether they are correct or not. Science is far more than that. It is thinking plus the tools required to test those thoughts. Philosophy is thinking regardless of reality. Science is thinking about reality.

Philosophy is simply love of knowledge after all. At least that's what the etymology tells me.

And the etymology of skepticism would tell you something very different from modern definitions of skepticism. That's not a good trap to fall in to. Philosophy is not the love of knowledge, because it cannot give you any knowledge. In order to gain knowledge you have to do more than just think about things, you have to find out how, and if, those thoughts apply to the real world. And that is the realm of science. Philosophy is the love of thinking about possible knowledge. Science is the love of actual knowledge.

[Matt]

Science is not a branch of philosophy because it usese many tools that simply do not exist in philosophy.

Can you give an example of one of these tools. I suspect we'll find that it's simply a matter of opinion whether these tools exist within the realm of in philosophy.

You might like to note that much of what is now called science was once called natural philosophy.

[Mike Hall]

at the heart of the scientific method is the unfalsifiable assumption that the universe opperates according to fixed rules whihc may be determined by observation.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that.

The theory that the universe operates according to fixed rules surely is falsifiable, at least in principle? In a universe where the rules frequently vary, no observation could stand up to repeated measurement.

Each time you mixed sodium hydroxide with hydrochloric acid at room temparature you'd wind up with beaker containing an arbitrary mix of chemicals. Or perhaps, occasionally, a dung beetle or the Radio Times. Not, as we reliably observe (100% reliably, as far as I'm aware), common salt and water.

Given our experimental observations can be reliably repeated, I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that the universe operates according to fixed rules. Or at least, our corner of the universe (in time as well as space) operates according to fixed rules.

If an experiment could be conducted, where a given observation consistently produced an arbitrary result, that would be evidence supporting a universe with arbitrary physical laws.

No?

[tolman]

You might like to note that much of what is now called science was once called natural philosophy.

But that could easily be explained as an appeal to tradition in an academic world where tradition did mean a great deal, and/or a world where 'philosophy' had a much more general meaning than it effectively has in current usage.

People could have started off calling science 'creation studies' but that wouldn't mean it was still a subset of religion.