Philosophy, Science & Reality

[Randolpin]

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality.

I will expound it thru questions:

1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)?

2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science.

3. Is philosophy as accurate as science?

4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?).

 

I hope you understand my points. If you need clarifications, just ask me. Thank you...

[dimreepr]

What makes you think philosophy and science are different?

Edited May 21, 2017 by dimreepr

[Randolpin]

What makes you think philosophy and science are different?

I don't really say that philosophy and science are different. I only point out the difference on their uses. Let me clarify it. Philosophy advances beyond what can be perceived by our perceptions unlike science which relies on evidences. I'm talking here not the general sscience but physics, biology etc.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Randolpin

[dimreepr]

Phd

[John Cuthber]

Does "making up random stuff" count as philosophy?

If philosophy proceeds without bothering to see if it is right or not then it's hard to tell the two apart.

 

Before you ask

Is philosophy more advanced than science in understanding reality because ...

you need to check that

philosophy Is more advanced than science in understanding reality

[dimreepr]

You need to be more specific, are you talking about empiricism or metaphysics?

 

Edit. cross posted.

Edited May 21, 2017 by dimreepr

[Randolpin]

Does "making up random stuff" count as philosophy?

If philosophy proceeds without bothering to see if it is right or not then it's hard to tell the two apart.

 

Before you ask

Is philosophy more advanced than science in understanding reality because ...

you need to check that

philosophy Is more advanced than science in understanding reality

First, I don't mean that "making stuff" count as philosophy. As I understand, philosophy requires logic to operate. So, philosophy is more on logic while science is also requires logic but with evidences also. I hope this makes clear to you.

You need to be more specific, are you talking about empiricism or metaphysics?

 

Edit. cross posted.

I'm talking both. In other words, the general philosophy.

You need to be more specific, are you talking about empiricism or metaphysics?

 

Edit. cross posted.

I'm talking both. In other words, the general philosophy.

[dimreepr]

 

I don't really say that philosophy and science are different. I only point out the difference on their uses. Let me clarify it. Philosophy advances beyond what can be perceived by our perceptions unlike science which relies on evidences. I'm talking here not the general sscience but physics, biology etc.

 

Then you're talking about the difference between reality and our best guess, so literally neither.

[Strange]

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality.

I will expound it thru questions:

1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)?

 

 

Science is always more advanced than philosophy because its ideas can be tested. It s therefore useful while philosophy is never useful in a practical sense.

 

 

 

2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science.

 

There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not.

 

As there are as many different philosophical ideas as there are philosophers, and many of those ideas are contradictory, it would seem that it is impossible for it to always be correct.

 

 

 

3. Is philosophy as accurate as science?

 

It doesn't make quantitative and testable predictions. So you can never know if it is accurate or wildly wrong.

 

 

 

4. When can we say that a question become philosophical?

 

When it is not testable, perhaps.

Neither science nor philosophy can tell us anything about reality. And it is philosophy tells us why that is the case.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Strange

[Lord Antares]

1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)

 

It most definitely isn't. Science is the best way we can describe reality to a woking extent whereas philosophy doesn't offer factual and experimental data.

I don't know why you think science can't step foward because it relies on data. With new data, new science is possible. Also, with new theories and models, new data can be acquired which can then be used.

 

 

2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science.

 

Philosophy is never correct nor incorrect. How could we rely solely on philosophy if it can't be used in the material world? You build new technology and equipment with science, not philosophy.

 

 

3. Is philosophy as accurate as science?

 

No. It doesn't work on accuracy. It's like asking if art was as accurate as science. Art and philosophy don't rely on correctness.

 

 

4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?).

 

No, philosophy isn't an advanced science. It isn't science at all.

Let's put it like this, to get a bette picture: Science shows how stuff works and philosophy seeks to describe why it works. It is an overgeneralization, but it's true a lot of the time.

[studiot]

There are clearly as many views on the meanings of philosophy, science and reality as there are posters here.

 

Small wonder there are such differences or that this type of discussion belongs in the pub.

 

Let's all go down to the pub to finish it.

 

[Randolpin]

What I really mean by "more advance" is that, philosophy advances and tackle an idea where science not yet can't.

 

Strange posted: There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not.

 

Philosophy is logic-based so how can we say that it might be incorrect?

Edited May 21, 2017 by Randolpin

[Raider5678]

First, I don't mean that "making stuff" count as philosophy. As I understand, philosophy requires logic to operate. So, philosophy is more on logic while science is also requires logic but with evidences also. I hope this makes clear to you.

Science requires evidence when logic cannot prove something.

There are two types of logic.

One makes inferences, and one makes deductions.

There's a huge difference.

The one that makes inferences can be wrong. But usually it's right, and it's used most commonly.

It's called inductive reasoning.

 

The other one, makes deductions, and can't be wrong. It's always right(If it isn't, then you didn't use deductive reasoning, you guessed/assumed something.)

But it's not commonly used in real life.

It's called deductive reasoning.

What I really mean by "more advance" is that, philosophy advances and tackle an idea where science not yet can't.

 

Strange posted: There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not.

 

Philosophy is logic-based so how can we say that it might be incorrect.

It's not logic based.

You don't understand philosophy.

[Randolpin]

Science requires evidence when logic cannot prove something.

There are two types of logic.

One makes inferences, and one makes deductions.

There's a huge difference.

The one that makes inferences can be wrong. But usually it's right, and it's used most commonly.

It's called inductive reasoning.

 

The other one, makes deductions, and can't be wrong. It's always right(If it isn't, then you didn't use deductive reasoning, you guessed/assumed something.)

But it's not commonly used in real life.

It's called deductive reasoning.

It's not logic based.

You don't understand philosophy.

How can you say that it is not logic based? If it is not logic based, why it is important? Why many philosophers are engaged in philosophy? If it is not logic based, they are only wasting time..

[Strange]

Strange posted: There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not.

 

Philosophy is logic-based so how can we say that it might be incorrect?

 

Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points.

 

So, for example, a classic example of a logical argument is:

 

1. All humans are mortal

2. Socrates is human

3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

 

We know that if the premises (1) and (2) are true then the conclusion (3) must also be true.

 

But we can use exactly the same structure to say:

 

1. All animals have four legs

2. My dog is an animal

3. Therefore my dog has four legs.

 

That looks plausible but, using the same logic again:

 

1. All animals have four legs

2. Socrates is an animal

3. Therefore Socrates has four legs.

 

So we can see that using a valid logical argument with a false premise means we can't say whether the conclusion is correct or not.

It's not logic based.

You don't understand philosophy.

 

I disagree. Logic is a very important component of philosophy. Formal logic is one of the first things taught in a philosophy course.

[Raider5678]

I disagree. Logic is a very important component of philosophy. Formal logic is one of the first things taught in a philosophy course.

I'm not at light to heavily disagree with this.

I meant more that philosophy doesn't follow a strict set of logical rules that always points to one conclusion because it uses inductive reasoning sometimes.

But for the most part I guess it is logic based.

I retract my statement.

[Randolpin]

Strange posted:

Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points.

 

So how about this:

1+1= 2

 

The logic is that if you add 1 & 1 the result is always 2 which is always correct.

 

In your argument:

1. All animals have four legs

2. Socrates is an animal

3. Therefore Socrates has four legs.

 

Premise 1 is false because not all animals are 4-legged so since socrates is an animal is still valid.

[Silvestru]

Randolphin you are splitting hairs

 

The taxi cab is yellow
Yellow is a color

Therefore the taxi is a color

 

Didn't you study logical arguments in school?

That's how far logic will take you

Also the difference that you ask between Science and Philosophy and which is more accurate is like if Grandma sends us candy and you try to determine how many you have by taking into consideration that your grandma is generous and she love you and me actually counting them with disregard towards my or her feelings.

[Strange]

I'm not at light to heavily disagree with this.

I meant more that philosophy doesn't follow a strict set of logical rules that always points to one conclusion because it uses inductive reasoning sometimes.

But for the most part I guess it is logic based.

I retract my statement.

 

 

Perhaps we can say that "philosophy should be based on logic". But, as you say, inductive reasoning is arubaly less reliable at serving correct results.

Strange posted:

Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points.

 

So how about this:

1+1= 2

 

The logic is that if you add 1 & 1 the result is always 2 which is always correct.

 

In your argument:

1. All animals have four legs

2. Socrates is an animal

3. Therefore Socrates has four legs.

 

Premise 1 is false because not all animals are 4-legged so since socrates is an animal is still valid.

 

That is my point. From a false premise you may get a false result, even if you use correct logic.

 

It is important to understand that logic is purely about the form of the argument not the truth of it.

[swansont]

What I really mean by "more advance" is that, philosophy advances and tackle an idea where science not yet can't.

 

 

 

Since they are largely non-overlapping areas of inquiry, the answer is almost by definition "yes"

[Randolpin]

Philosophy uses the right & valid premises supported by the evidences found in nature. We can't call it philosophy if the philosophical argument's premise is not valid. This is my point.

[Lord Antares]

Philosophy uses the right & valid premises supported by the evidences found in nature

 

No it doesn't. It's the opposite of that. It tries to reach logical conclusions without quantifiable results or evidence.

That is done by science. If you want to make something that works, if you want to figure out variables for devices, if you want to calculate energy consumption for economy, if you want to synthesize materials etc. you use science, because philosophy provides none of that. It delves more into why those things are happening and what they mean. As it requires no mathematics, you cannot make any output out of philosophy.

 

Also, the ''correctness'' (which is a loose term anyway) of philosophy is often arguable, something which is antithetical to science. In science, agreement with experiment and evidence is a requirement if you want to know what you're doing.

[Strange]

Philosophy uses the right & valid premises supported by the evidences found in nature.

 

 

If it evidence based, then it would be science, not philosophy.

 

 

 

We can't call it philosophy if the philosophical argument's premise is not valid.

 

How do you account for the fact that there are many different philosophies with different and frequently contradictory ideas? They can't all be right.

Edited May 23, 2017 by Strange

[Randolpin]

So philosophy is just like speculation? An assertion on how we look reality? Is that what you mean?

But philosophy could be correct also, when for example it based it's premise in a solid-ground of premises. Science could act the same way. Science look reality by creating models of it. Philosophy look reality by speculation. The difference between them is that science create model thru evidences or observation while philosophy is merely on speculation. But philosophy could also start it's premise based on already established facts of reality. So it's premise is valid and as a result, we arrive at correct conclusion.

Let me give a sample argument.

1. Everything that exist must have an explanation for it's existence. The validity of this premise is based on what we observe in our surroundings. Buildings exist because of the builder's reason to build,plant's exist in a specific place because it adapts the place. So we see that all that exist must have an explanation why they exist. So philosophy will soundly create the next premise that:

2. The universe exist. Therefore it must have a reason or explanation why it exist. Although science don't know yet that there must be a reason, philosophy already knows that there must be a reason, and it could be right because the premise 1 is valid.

[Itoero]

Many interpretations/theories concerning physics are not based on evidence but fit with certain measurements/observations.(like Interpretations of quantum mechanics)

Are they in a sense philosophical concepts that become science when they are sufficiently proven?