beecee

Be as sorry as you like, the crux of the matter is you are delusional. "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself." Henry Louis Mencken. Let me reiterate...I have nothing against religion at all, other then it is unscientific, and have nothing against religious people, until they have the audacity of deriding science. If that offends you, and if my comment re religion and philosophy having much in common offends you, then so be it. I suggest you take an aspro and have a good lie down. 🙄 Yes, totally agree, and supported by many others including Krauss, Hawking, Degrasse-Tyson, and Weinberg. [1]The bible in actual fact is no more a history book then Goldilocks and the three bears. It is in fact a book based on unevidenced mythical nonsense, written by a group of obscure men, in an obscure age.That is a statement of fact not a criticism per se. [2] Philosophy deals in the abstract and morality: science deals in facts; but one out of three ain't bad!!!

Is it? I'll leave you to your philosophical devices and your associated delusions. No lies matey, simply facts and views rubbishing your own philosophical claptrap. This is the factaul statement by Studiot I was answering, if it is at all any of your business.... "I have explained several times in this thread that 'greater' does not mean better. It means 'of larger size' that by some measure or other. In the case of Science outgrowing Philosophy, I suggest the scope and extent of scientific knowledge now well exceeds that of philosophic". Obviously he has a far better handle on both science and philosophy then you have...Try learning, instead of preaching.

Like you, I'm also an amateur enthusiast, probably though far older. Some good advice from those two gentlemen [using the term loosely 😉]above me. All I can do is recommend a couple of good books....Black Holes and Time warps by Kip Thorne, and another is The First Three Minutes by Stephen Weinberg. You could also try for some basic stuff, A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.

I see the question as mute. The facts are science models and the theories are always open for modification and/or improvement. That answers admirably, and inference or search for the truth and reality nonsense...which as I mentioned is more akin to religious faith then to any science. My comments often were a result of your own less then complimentary remarks, the difference being, I failed to add at the end, "I'm only joking" But if you take any offence against my criticism of what you have claimed, then I apologise. In my search for the philosophers view/critique of Krauss, I came upon another critique of philosophy by the late great Stephen Weinberg...... Here is a sample of what he said...again as I see it, more a critique on the limitations of philosophy and the encroachmnet of physics into that arena.... http://joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/Weinberg against philosophy.pdf "Physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague aesthetic judgments that it might be expected that we would be helped also by philosophy, out of which after all our science evolved. Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory? The value today of philosophy to physics seems to me to be something like the value of early nation-states to their peoples. It is only a small exaggeration to say that, until the introduction of the post office, the chief service of nation-states was to protect their peoples from other nation-states. The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers. I do not want to draw the lesson here that physics is best done without preconceptions. At any one moment there are so many things that might be done, so many accepted principles that might be challenged, that without some guidance from our preconceptions one could do nothing at all. It is just that philosophical principles have not generally provided us with the right preconceptions. In our hunt for the final theory, physicists are more like hounds than hawks; we have become good at sniffing around on the ground for traces of the beauty we expect in the laws of nature, but we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy. Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers. This is not to deny all value to philosophy, much of which has nothing to do with science. I do not even mean to deny all value to the philosophy of science, which at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science. But we should not expect it to provide today's scientists with any useful guidance about how to go about their work or about what they are likely to find".

Sure. http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html Let me say that I certainly believe that Krauss over stepped when he called Albert a “moronic philosopher,” On the up side, Krauss later did also apologise for his remark...

https://phys.org/news/2021-09-nasa-space-telescope-december.html NASA's next space telescope to launch in December: The James Webb Space Telescope, which astronomers hope will herald a new era of discovery, will launch on December 18, NASA said Wednesday. more at link....

An article today.... https://phys.org/news/2021-09-reveals-impact-climate-sierra-nevada.html Study reveals dramatic impact of climate change in the Sierra Nevada: In California, the impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly obvious. Turn on the news and you will hear about extreme heat waves, droughts and frequent wildfires plaguing the state. "Climate change is one of the grand challenges facing society," said Michael McGlue, associate professor in the University of Kentucky's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences. "California, our most populous state and one of the largest economies globally, faces major threats from hot, dry conditions. This is manifested in the four major fires burning, largely uncontained, in the state right now." Climate change will significantly impact the Sierra Nevada mountain range, which runs along the state's eastern border with Nevada. The Sierra Nevada's snowpack serves as the most important water source in state. Under normal conditions, snow falls on the mountains in the winter and remains frozen until spring. It then melts and runs off into major rivers that feed into central and southern California, sustaining vast agricultural fields and urban areas. more at link.................... the paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15843 Anthropogenic climate change has altered lake state in the Sierra Nevada (California, USA) Abstract Climatic changes threaten freshwater resources and aquatic ecosystem health in the Sierra Nevada (California, USA), which has important consequences for millions of people and the world's fifth largest economy. However, the timing and magnitude of ecological changes driven by hydroclimate oscillations remain poorly understood in California's headwater region. Here, we develop a precisely dated, annually to decadally resolved lake sediment record of ecological change from the eastern Sierra Nevada that spans the last three millennia. Diatom paleoecology reveals a detailed history of abrupt limnologic transitions, best explained by modifications in water column stratification, mixing, and nutrient status in response to changing seasonality. Seasonally stratified conditions were registered during the Late Holocene Dry Period and the Medieval Climate Anomaly, illustrating the sensitivity of fossil diatoms to well-known periods of drought. Yet the most striking feature of the record is the uniqueness of ~1840–2016 CE: a period of singularly strong water column stratification, increased algal diversity, and reduced diatom productivity consistent with unprecedented “hot droughts.” The data demonstrate that hot–dry conditions of the Industrial Era altered lake state to conditions unseen in the past ~3180 years, and suggest that regional trends identified by historical monitoring began far earlier than previously recognized. Our record illustrates the profound influence of anthropogenic climate warming on high-elevation lakes and the ecosystem services they provide in the Sierra Nevada, which hold implications for water quality and availability in California.

The problem [if it is a problem] with the scientific method, is that "one size fits all" aspect isn't a fixed, constant postulate, and doesn't reflect that in realty [I hate that word! 😉] science and the approach to science, varies significantly across the many disciplines. I see that variability as rather minor anyway, and even if significant in any one of the steps involved, is not that important imvho. The part about science and the scientific method, that many don't realize, that in the sometimes lengthy road to a final result, many times mistakes are common, and this in essence, are blessings in disguise.Science is full of mistakes, serindipitous results and controversy. And yet in the end, generally comes out on top.

Believe it, I certainly wrote it. And I actually have no bias against religion, none at all,[my wife is very religious and we have been married 42 years now] Any arguments I have against religion generally arise when fanatical religious folk, try and compare religion to science and attempt to denigrate it. Then I may let them have both barrels. And yes, I do see religion similar to philosophy in many ways, and certainly much closer to it then science. Both ask questions like what is reality, with religion of course answering that with unscientific supernatural answers. I also see similarities between religion and some philosophers themselves, particularly on the question of this truth and/or reality that they rattle on about. https://www.learnreligions.com/religion-vs-philosophy-250711 If you are having difficulty in determining the difference between faith [with no evidence] and scientific theories based on observational and experimental evidence then you have a problem, probably beyond my explaining it. ???? 🤪🙄 What? See my previous answer. Wow! Bingo!! Personally I have never inferred that philosophy is better then science...it is the foundation of science of course. Your second statement is also 100%, let's make that 99% true, and exactly what Professor Krauss infers in his book, "A Universe from Nothing" Philosophers today seem so thin skinned!

These blokes obviously are not crackpots. But just as obviously, I see it as a scientists duty to rectify and invalidate some of the potential dangerous utterences by crackpots...the current misinformation doing the rounds with covid19 is a good example.

I'll sit back at this stage and keep my "philosophisng" to myself, and let you two knowledgable scientists debate it. 😊

Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Mine is different. He obviously has hit a sore point with many philosophers, as did Hawking and Degrasse Tyson. Probably others as I havn't really made this a hobby. You need to talk to Davey and Dimreeper, and perhaps examine your own rhetoric. We might, yes...How will we recognise that fact. Go ask a cosmologist. Probably in the first instance though, elimination the BH and BB singularities...perhaps as Professor Krauss speculates, the quantum foam is as close to nothing as we can ever get...perhaps for all intents and purposes it is nothing. You should be able to get your philosophical claws into some of that Eise! 😊 I answerd that. That's because you're not being fair dinkum. You understood perfectly my use of "false Knowledge" Knowledge and belief in either. The question asks the differences between science and philosophy. Your semantics and pedant about my use of "false Knowldge" is disingenious to say the least. You would do better to be critical of the philosopher that has refused to see reason in two threads so far and others conducting disingenious banter. http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/ Philosophy is like being in a dark room looking for a cat: Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there: Theology is like being in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting I've found him!: Science is like looking for a black cat in a dark room using a flash light! The first stone was thrown by another, in the gravity thread. I'm tempted to throw in that excellent Henry Menken quote again. Plenty of philosophers jumping up an down, screaming blue murder that someone dare critise them... Near bedtime here, I'll think about checking it out tomorrow morning.

The question in the title is "What is the real difference between science and philosophy"? While philosophy has laid the ground work for the scientific methodology and most other disciplines, in the case of science, it seems that it [science] is now by necessity encroaching on areas that were once only covered by philosophy. This is what many scientist of late now believe, starting with of course Professor Krauss, Professor Degrasse Tyson and the late Professor Stephen Hawking smf sd [rt links given previously. A more professional appraisel follows..... https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/13/philosophy-and-its-contrast-with-science/#:~:text=Science is about empirical knowledge,truths (if they exist). Science is about empirical knowledge; philosophy is also about a priori knowledge (if it exists). Science is about contingent facts; philosophy is also about necessary truths (if they exist). Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is also about normative truths (if they exist). Science is about physical objects; philosophy is also about abstract objects (if they exist). more at link.................................................

I have seen you misquote before or take out of context, and coupled with your obvious vagueness, I take your claims with a grain of salt. You have been informed by Professor Lincoln and others here that a scientific model or theory does not search for your truth and/or reality. We do not know the true nature of gravity for reasons I have informed you of. You speak of DM. We have reasonable evidence that it exists, other then the anomolous rotational curves of galaxies, there is the Bullet cluster observation that indicates DM. Could scientists be wrong? Of course they could! Could our models of gravity be faulty over large scales? Possibly yes, but less likely. Or are you finally admitting in your vagueness that what people have been telling you about gravity is correct. That's admirable of you if correct! Unlike you, that is always my starting point.

Much as you site your philoosphy over many disciplines, with all the zeal of Buddah. I may mot be a philosopher old friend, nor a scientist, but I'm pretty good at sorting the wheat from the chaff, be that philosophers or scientists, and as such of course, am able to approach things without bias.

Correct, but personally, knowing a little bit about cars, and I will observe at make sure he knows what he is doing, and of course get a reputable mechanic in the first place. You do understand that we have Mavericks in all parts of society, including, yes, even scientists. You see the reason why you lose respect as a "philosopher", is simply because you are trying to belittle science, and inferring religious faith as the same as scientific trust...I see the results of science everyday. Gee, funny I agree, except on your claim about Davey not taking aim at science. But hey, I could possibly be wrong, but if you have the time, check out all I have been saying and what Davy has been saying and a couple of rather silly inferences and of course what I have said.

Is he? Perhaps the facts are as he states...nothing wrong with philosophy per se, it is the foundation of the scientific method, it's the philosophers generally speaking, and there own efforts to go above and beyond sensibility and reason. "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself": Henry Louis Mencken. We all philosophise [is that a word? ☺️] It's the silly extent some see the need to go to, indugling in pedant and semantics. The facts stand as per George Bernard Shaw's quote and the dictionary reference, that sometimes [as in the Ptolomy era] accepted knowledge or belief is found to be false knowledge in the course of time. Even if your pedant and semantics was justified, in essence, it was only a red herring as you know exactly what is meant. I do give you that much credit. The actual belief of the day, was that the Sun and everything else, in fact the whole universe, orbitied the Earth...While with regards to the solar system, it is a useful model, it was not seen as a model in that era...it was seen as reality, aided and abetted by the church, under the misapprehension that we were some god's chose disciples and so the center of his whole creation. It wasn't of course reality of course but still a useful model. The only complication rests with you [and Davy] playing one-upmanship. You need to talk to Davy about that. I believe we have some idea about certain things, but obviously not others. Again you need to talk to Dave about that. My view, supported of course by science in general, and the scientific method, is that theories and models, simply describe based on our observations and experimental results. The goal of scientific models is not about truth and/or reality, whatever that maybe, and if it exists at all. But if by chance, science should accidently discover this truth/reality stuff, then all well and good. I believe I have said that many times now, but Davey cannot comprehend. Yes, you need to talk to him. That is near exactly what I have been saying. Scientific theories and models are about usefullness and the goal is not truth and reality, whatever that is and if it even exists, Even our best model of gravity, GR fails at t+10-45th seconds and the core of BH's, so obviously it cannot be a true description of reality. I've rattled that off to Davey many times....Check out the gravity thread. With all due respect, you need to check out what I and davey have been saying, as you have come in late, this has now been argued on in two threads. Of course not. And in essence, that's not the prime goal of the model. [the true nature] The latter of course, as that is what I have been saying all olong in two threads. 🙄

And analogies are limited in application, some actually are invalid. [1] The only person so far suggesting an all inclusive meaning, is yourself. The models and theories formulated by physicists are judged by their usefullness and the fact that room is always left for future improvement or modification. eg: As we all know by now, we do not yet understand the true reality of gravity. There are others if you wish. [2] Knowledge certainly does not imply truth or reality, if they exist...knowledge also can be "false knowledge" as already defined and as understood in general by most, not withstanding any unecessary semantics and/or pedant. [3] Quote away! It's not a myth, and is based originally on reasoned philosophy. Of course depending on the exact discipline, the methodology may vary in small ways. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries). It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises. Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your last comment is not offensive at all, at least not taken that way by me, despite some undertones of facetiousness and sarcasm sprinkled thoughout the thread....including by myself also. Obviously you are just wrong, and just as obviously, have given non applicable and weird answers, based more on being philosophically facetious, then any needed correction. And at least part of the reason why I sometimes treat such unecessary philosophy with disdain and rejection.

No one does Philoosphy better then philosphers: it does not follow however that no one knows more about philosophy than philosophers. eg: George Bernard Shaw...Carl Sagan...Richard Feynman Leo Szillard comes to mind.....A Hungarian physicist involved with the physical construction and theoretical physics of the bomb, that dared to philosophise about it being dropped on Japan, after the defeat of Hitler. Yes, we all philosophise, going on the definition of philosophy by philosophers. We all think about certain things and their practical and moral value everyday...we are all philosophers, although as Eise noted, I know nothing about philosophy. 😉

I doubt that. And you are doing exactly what you are accusing Krauss of. Yes, great read, and yes again, my interest in philosophy is pretty basic and sometimes dismissive, for reasons shown in this thread by some. I'm really not that interested or concerned with your's or Davy's pedantic and semantic take on the subject, particularly when the general application and knowledge is as I say, at least with the average Joe Blow, of which I am one. And of course while Ptolomy's was useful [still used today] like Newtonian, it has been superceeded in many cases, by a model that is supported by observational data. The error of Ptolomy, [which you, like Davy has mysteriously brushed aside] is that his Earth centered view was taken as true, factual and real, ably supported for many centuries by the church, and the equally mistaken premise that the Earth and man was/is the centre of God's creation, despite the unscientific nature of such supernatural nonsense. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=false knowledge "Beware of false knowledge: It is more Dangerous then Ignorance. George Bernard Shaw. Nup, but you like Davey, are confusing the fact that through the ages, the belief in any particular system, was true knowledge, and as per Ptolomy, taken quite literally as true and real. It was essentially false knowledge and false belief in that knowledge. On the first sentence, tell that to George....On your second paragraph, because with today's Satellites, ISS, standing and walking on the Moon six times, space exploration to all the planets and even minor ones, the Hubble telescope, the many technologically advanced Earth based scopes, we know that the solar system is situated in the outer part of a spiral arm in a spiral galaxy, just one of many gravitationally bound galaxies in our group, which is just a small part of billions of other galaxies that inhabit the observable universe. A pretty real, truely factual situation, based on our technology today. So just to recap over a couple of threads, while we are pretty near certain of the geography of the solar system, galaxy and observable universe, most scientific theories/models do not have truth/reality as their goal, whatever that truth and reality is. eg: we still do not know the true nature of gravity. Not at all....Most educated folk call it trust. The scientific method is by far the best system we have. Your "god of the gaps" inference is weird to say the least, and evidently totally invalid. Actually as I said, and Krauss's, examples of where practical and theoretical physics, takes over from the uncertainty of philosophy. But hey! I'm no philoospher as you already noted. I'm also no scientist, as I readily admit, so I actually see my view as far more valid and real, then the philosophers that have come together, like birds of a feather, sticking together, to attempt to drown out the audacity of this lay person 😁 Audacious maybe...close to the truth, certainly, and the explanation as to why Krauss's utterences, created such a hue and cry from our philosophical friends. Or perhaps because of some of the many quotes by reputable scientists and others, critical of philosophy that do exist, and that I have throughout this and another thread, listed here.

Adding to the above any knowledge is your interpretation of personal observation, and accepted norms as I hinted at previously. Truth/reality though is the definition of absolute [if it at all exists] and consequently knowledge based on that is not always true. How many times has science been determined wrong through new observations and research? That alone is the beauty of science, as I have said previously and is always ignored by our troofers in that it is the discipline in eternal progress, as dictated by the scientific methodology. I don't believe anyone here was saying that, and the likes of Krauss was simply saying that much of which at one time was pure philosophy, is now being part and parcel of theoretical physics. Feynman certainly made some provocative quotes, but we also have had provactive statements regarding science. I'm neither philosopher or scientist, just an avid supporter of the scientific methodology, that has its foundations in philosophy. My only beef has been with one or two silly utterences in this thread. Is philoosphy dead imo? No, but although at the foundations of science and the scientific method, has had some of its former territory overtaken and consumed by theoretical physics, but at the same time, the further science develops and creates models, the possibility of new philosophical questions will probably arise.

Knowledge implies what we know...or what we think we know. During the age of Ptolomy the knowledge available, couples with the influence of the church, was that the solar system was the universe and that the earth was the center of that system. That was false knowledge, you know, as I linked for you a couple of posts back? Since those days, observational data by Galileo and Copernicus has shown that to be wrong. Our knowledge now is more complete because science and technology has shown us that we are in a heliocentric solar system, situated on the outskirts of a spiral arm in a galaxy, just one amongst many billions of other galaxies. That knowledge is pretty close to reality, although as we all know, and to the dismay of "some" philosophical types, our scientific theories and models, as discussed in the gravity thread, are meant to be useful applications for calculations and not necessarily true or reality, whatever that maybe and if it at all exists. False knowledge of course as we all know, becomes myth, or lies, or mistaken or dangerous interpretations, once it has become known. Until though it becomes known, it remains as knowledge in the eyes and minds of those that accept it.eg: religious beliefs, faulty philosophical rhetoric or rantings, and those that accept such. But this thread is about the differences between science and philosophy. On that issue, I'm with Professors Krauss, Degrasse-Tyson and the late Professor Hawking, and I suggest many others.

A scientific theory or model, is not necessarilly after or searching for truth and/or reality. It is a useful, mathematically supported theory based on current evidence, that describes a certain situation. eg: GR and gravity being spacetime geometry.eg: But we also know that GR does not tell us anything about the core of BH's and the instant of the BB, and as such, we are consequently ignorant of the true nature of gravity. Philosophy while being at the foundations of science, [the scientific method] is more appropo to asking why, as per the following excellent 7.5 minute video... Philosophy while asking questions, very seldom answers them... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language.[3][4] Such questions are often posed as problems[5][6] to be studied or resolved. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – c. 495 BCE),[7][8] others dispute this story,[9][10] arguing that Pythagoreans merely claimed use of a preexisting term.[11] Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.

Analogies are just that, analogies, most have limitations, your's has no applicability at all. In the case of false knowledge as per Ptolomy era and a Earth centered philosophy, all believed and accepted that as it is detailed. Your "married Bachelor" nonsense is known for what it is, and for all intents and purposes, obviously would not stand up where a marriage certificate is designated or required. They are a single couple living together as a married couple. None of this though invalidates the practical nature of science and the subjective nature of philosophy and thinking.

I'll stick with Shaw and his knowledge, as well as the many other explantions/reasons I have given, but I'll also play your pedantic game. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=false knowledge false knowledge: A person telling someone, about or how to do something, when in reality the person does not know what they are talking about and is talking dangerous ignorance. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(01)05552-0.pdf https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/false knowledge :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: False knowledge of course as we all know, becomes myth, or lies, or mistaken or dangerous interpretations, once it has become known. Until though it becomes known, it remains as knowledge in the eyes and minds of those that accept it.eg: religious beliefs, faulty philosophical rhetoric or rantings, and those that accept such..