What is the difference between science and philosophy?

[a common mechanism]

What is the difference between science and philosophy? 

[beecee]

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

[Sensei]

In science we're observing physical event, measuring physical constants and variables changing with time, and creating mathematical equations which can be used later again to predict result when the same circumstances will happen again.

 

[Phi for All]

Science looks for what, where, when, and how. Philosophy looks for why.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Science looks for what, where, when, and how. Philosophy looks for why.

I like that.

The methods used support those goals. Science is based on quantitative evidence that is used to test hypotheses based on a mode of how things work. (Ideally the model is mathematical or, at least, quantitative so that it can be tested objectively.)

Philosophy uses logic (n the formal sense, not the "common sense" model) and rational analysis of causes and effects to try and get deeper than science does.

[geordief]

When you feed the scientific (or unscientific)  results back into the process  in a manner like  feedback or ""chewing the cud" you come up with "meta information"  that could pass for philosophy.

 

As  the noted philosopher Spike Milligan KBE  penned,

 

Bigger fleas have little fleas 
Upon their backs to bite 'em 
And little fleas have lesser fleas 
And so on, ad infinitum 

Edited December 29, 2017 by geordief

[studiot]

Science tells you how to put spin on a tennis ball when you hit it, and what happens to the ball when you do.

Philosophy tells you why you bothered to hit it in the first place.

[geordief]

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

Science tells you how to put spin on a tennis ball when you hit it, and what happens to the ball when you do.

Philosophy tells you why you bothered to hit it in the first place.

That's psychology, surely.(unless you are putting a spin on it) 

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, geordief said:

That's psychology, surely.(unless you are putting a spin on it) 

 

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them"

Surely Psychology is part of Philosophy, as the Man said.

 

[geordief]

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them"

Surely Psychology is part of Philosophy, as the Man said.

 

Apparently "  Psychology was once a part of philosophy, but separated from it due to its reliance on biology and the physical sciences"

according to this man

http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1926-03228-001

 

Not that I am familiar with him.

[studiot]

Quote

Mandy Rice-Davis

He would say that wouldn't he?

 

 

 

[geordief]

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

  Quote
Mandy Rice-Davis

He would say that wouldn't he?

Was that a philosophical observation or a scientific one?

[studiot]

Quote

Michael Miles

Pray take your pick sir

 

[Eise]

On 29/12/2017 at 2:23 AM, a common mechanism said:

What is the difference between science and philosophy? 

Science tries to understand reality.

Philosophy reflects on our way of thinking about reality: it tries to find (hidden) assumptions behind our way of thinking, and remove ambiguities in the concepts we are using in our thinking. For more, see here.

[a common mechanism]

I believe philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while science deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws. 

It can be traced back to the origin. In the ancient Greece, philosophy was defined as "love wisdom" but this term is very ambiguous. Human being uses their wisdom to do all things for example, use wisdom to do cunning things. But this is not philosophy. What the Greeks meant was to perform intellectual activities to search for the answer from environment (external and internal). The whole process of this activity was defined as philosophy, for example, "what compose our world" and methodologies including rhetoric and dialectic. But later, the division of looking into the environment was classified as natural philosophy which now has been changed to the term of science. From the medieval time, Human being's approach to look for answer have developed into the so-called "scientific approach" which is more accurate compared with the ancient time but still falls into the fundamental approach of how to understand the world. When the new approach of looking into the world was formed, many new science developments were achieved. Science as a breakaway division of philosophy left philosophy as a study looking to the most fundamental rules governing our world. That is why philosophy covers much larger system while science only covers their subsystem, a much smaller area. The commonality between these two is they both looking to rules in the universe. The difference is they study different rules.

[Rob McEachern]

Until about the year 1600 there was no difference. Then Galileo, Bacon and others created the difference. Although it is a bit of an over-simplification, you could say that philosophy prior to 1600 was mostly modeled on ancient Greek mathematics - you stated some premises, then derived, via deductive logic, some conclusions based on those premises.  So Aristotle stated the premise that the cosmos is perfect, therefore the planets must move in perfect circles (I won't get into how epicycles fit into this idea), perfectly centered on the earth, with a moon that is a perfect sphere etc. But 2000 years later, Galileo discovered mountains on the moon, disproving that long-standing premise of perfection. That triggered rapid changes. Shortly thereafter, Bacon declared that science (he called it Natural History) needed to be based first and foremost on Inductive reasoning rather than deduction, because only induction, applied to actual observations, was likely to be able to ascertain the validity of the starting premises, thereby avoiding a repeat of the earlier problems resulting from dubious premises. This became the basis of the "scientific method". Bacon was also the person who first proposed massive "state funding" for this new enterprise - previously people like Galileo either had to be financially independent, or seek financial aid from wealthy patrons, a situation that did not change too much, until the mid-nineteenth century. Bacon was also mostly interested in what would be called "applied science" today, rather than basic research. He was interested in finding new ways to cause desirable effects - like finding a new medicine for curing a disease. Bacon also was of the opinion that, starting with Socrates, the Greek philosophers were responsible for a 2000 year delay in philosophical/scientific progress, because unlike the pre-Socratic philosophers, they had convinced subsequent generations of philosophers to focus almost exclusively on moral and social issues rather than Natural Philosophy, now known as Science. A number of present-day philosophers of science, have become concerned that physics, in particular, is reverting to the pre-Bacon model, of pulling dubious premises out of thin-air, deriving wonderful, elegant (fanciful?) conclusions based on such premises, and having too little concern for experimental validation of their premises.

[a common mechanism]

Re:"Until about the year 1600 there was no difference". 

That is exactly right. Thales, an ancient Greek philosopher who proposed " water compose the world" is considered the first scientist. The term of "science" was not used then. From the historical tradition, the study of beauty  traditionally falls into domain of philosophy. But now, it is a study of psychology/neuropsychology/neural physiology. It involves  neural physiology, biochemistry and physics.   Certainly, it is science. However, it has its philosophy root. 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Rob McEachern said:

Until about the year 1600 there was no difference. Then Galileo, Bacon and others created the difference. Although it is a bit of an over-simplification, you could say that philosophy prior to 1600 was mostly modeled on ancient Greek mathematics - you stated some premises, then derived, via deductive logic, some conclusions based on those premises.  So Aristotle stated the premise that the cosmos is perfect, therefore the planets must move in perfect circles (I won't get into how epicycles fit into this idea), perfectly centered on the earth, with a moon that is a perfect sphere etc. But 2000 years later, Galileo discovered mountains on the moon, disproving that long-standing premise of perfection. That triggered rapid changes. Shortly thereafter, Bacon declared that science (he called it Natural History) needed to be based first and foremost on Inductive reasoning rather than deduction, because only induction, applied to actual observations, was likely to be able to ascertain the validity of the starting premises, thereby avoiding a repeat of the earlier problems resulting from dubious premises. This became the basis of the "scientific method". Bacon was also the person who first proposed massive "state funding" for this new enterprise - previously people like Galileo either had to be financially independent, or seek financial aid from wealthy patrons, a situation that did not change too much, until the mid-nineteenth century. Bacon was also mostly interested in what would be called "applied science" today, rather than basic research. He was interested in finding new ways to cause desirable effects - like finding a new medicine for curing a disease. Bacon also was of the opinion that, starting with Socrates, the Greek philosophers were responsible for a 2000 year delay in philosophical/scientific progress, because unlike the pre-Socratic philosophers, they had convinced subsequent generations of philosophers to focus almost exclusively on moral and social issues rather than Natural Philosophy, now known as Science. A number of present-day philosophers of science, have become concerned that physics, in particular, is reverting to the pre-Bacon model, of pulling dubious premises out of thin-air, deriving wonderful, elegant (fanciful?) conclusions based on such premises, and having too little concern for experimental validation of their premises.

An excellent summary with a worthwhile comment at the end (underlined) +1

 

I can only add the observation that there were two Bacons dealing in Philosophy and Rob is referring to the second, as the contemporary of Galileo.

Roger Bacon 1214 - 1292

Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626

[geordief]

On 12/29/2017 at 9:59 PM, studiot said:

 

Philosophy(as the word is presently used)  is at its core a subjective process and inversely scientific discovery aims to find and understand processes that operate  independently of the observer.

 

Both aims  fail as the subjective  and the objective are interlinked at some level but each discipline is "top heavy"  in its own arena. drawing on the other for  verifications along the way.

 

The scientific method aims to entirely  remove subjective  elements but cannot and similarly philosophy  may build castles in the sky but has to come down to earth  when its reality does not match up with  the way it has imagined.

 

Religion may have squared the circle in that its "reality"   is a mirage that can never  be disproved and so attempts to lay claim to both philosophical and scientific authority. (a bit tendentious since I have to get a dig in at the charlatans and their apparently docile victims )

[Eise]

11 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

I believe philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while science deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws. 

...

'Believing' what philosophy is has no place here. See the curriculum of some philosophy departments in philosophy, and you can get a notion of what philosophy is today. And in another way you already got a very good answer on reddit. TychoCelchuuu gave you there a list of philosophical topics that simply do not 'deal with the most fundamental issues'.

8 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

Thales, an ancient Greek philosopher who proposed " water compose the world" is considered the first scientist. 

Considered by whom? Not by me. Thales was the first to use a rational principle to show how he thought nature was buildup. For the rest he used Babylonian observation lists to predict a sun eclipse. That is a great feat, but I think one should consider him as a proto-scientist. 

9 hours ago, Rob McEachern said:

Although it is a bit of an over-simplification...

... it is a good overview. Thank you. 

6 hours ago, studiot said:

I can only add the observation that there were two Bacons dealing in Philosophy and Rob is referring to the second, as the contemporary of Galileo.

Roger Bacon 1214 - 1292

Francis Bacon 1561 - 1626

Yeah, funny isn't it? And both expressed the importance of observations as instrument to develop knowledge. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Eise

[a common mechanism]

Re:Eise' comment: "Considered by whom? Not by me"

Have good look. . https://www.google.com/search?q=thales+the+first+scientist&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS764US773&oq=thales+the+first+scientist&aqs=chrome..69i57.10342j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on

"'Believing' what philosophy is has no place here"

The word "believe" I used was trying to be moderate, courteous  rather than being commanding and arrogant. It is widely used in a civilised world.

 

[Eise]

11 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

Re:Eise' comment: "Considered by whom? Not by me"

Have good look. . https://www.google.com/search?q=thales+the+first+scientist&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS764US773&oq=thales+the+first+scientist&aqs=chrome..69i57.10342j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on

I think it was clear that I do not consider him a scientist. He made his self no ideas about methodology, like Galileo or Francis Bacon. He is always mentioned in history of science and philosophy because he was the first to explain the world based on natural and rational principles, not on the whims of gods. 

11 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

The word "believe" I used was trying to be moderate, courteous  rather than being commanding and arrogant. It is widely used in a civilised world.

I know. But is a bit funny to say 'believe' here, when you can just look up the curriculum of philosophy of any university, and see what the topics are. It is like saying 'I believe that the sun is a big burning sphere of coal'. It is not a question of belief (even when it is meant courteously), you can just look up what the experts say. In the case of philosophy you can just look what the contents of the academic disciplines are. Your description ("philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while science deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws.") has nothing to do what is presently done under the flag of 'philosophy' at universities.

Quote

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

 

[a common mechanism]

On 05/01/2018 at 11:56 PM, Eise said:

I think it was clear that I do not consider him a scientist. He made his self no ideas about methodology, like Galileo or Francis Bacon. He is always mentioned in history of science and philosophy because he was the first to explain the world based on natural and rational principles, not on the whims of gods. 

I know. But is a bit funny to say 'believe' here, when you can just look up the curriculum of philosophy of any university, and see what the topics are. It is like saying 'I believe that the sun is a big burning sphere of coal'. It is not a question of belief (even when it is meant courteously), you can just look up what the experts say. In the case of philosophy you can just look what the contents of the academic disciplines are. Your description ("philosophy deals with the most fundamental issues while science deals with the issues that based on the fundamental issues. This means the laws that govern all science issues are based on the fundamental laws that govern the whole universe. The study of philosophy is to look into these fundamental laws.") has nothing to do what is presently done under the flag of 'philosophy' at universities.

1) He is considered as the first scientist not because of methodology but because he sought truth from nature rather than from mythology.  Methodology only differ between ancient science and modern science, while your definition is based on methodology. Well, you are  entitle to have your idea but only the idea survive if it fit the fact. 

2) If just look up the curriculum of philosophy of any university was the gold standard then what is the point for new research and new development? to study philosophy,  it is important to understand the nature of concept,  hypothesis, notion and  truth. All these words are important to study philosophy. 

I was asked this question more than twenty years ago and I could not answered. But later, I drew this conclusion independently and checked on the Internet. It was consistent with the definition  from the department of philosophy, Charles Sturt university  university. As someone posts on Quora, "philosophy covers larger area than science".  Why? because the laws that philosophy studies are at a much deeper level and indeed at the most fundamental level. 

 

[Eise]

1 hour ago, a common mechanism said:

1) He is considered as the first scientist not because of methodology but because he sought truth from nature rather than from mythology.  Methodology only differ between ancient science and modern science, while your definition is based on methodology. Well, you are  entitle to have your idea but only the idea survive if it fit the fact. 

But today that would be the demarcation between science and pseudo-science. Would you call Samuel Hahnemann, the grounder of homeopathy a scientist? If Thales was one, then he was one too. Hahnemann had a method (even if it was very incomplete, and therefore lead to wrong conclusions).

1 hour ago, a common mechanism said:

Why? because the laws that philosophy studies are at a much deeper level and indeed at the most fundamental level. 

Can you give examples of such 'philosophical laws'?

3 hours ago, a common mechanism said:

It was consistent with the definition  from the department of philosophy, Charles Sturt university  university.

I did not find a definition of philosophy on the Charles Sturt university. I am bad at googling, or it really isn't there. Can you provide a link and citation?

[studiot]

Do you not find arguing over a definition like "the definition of Philosophy is...." pointless?

 

Often as soon as a third person enters the discussion yet another definition is broached.

 

The twentieth century has seen the development of the solution to this.

 

Before one uses a term it is good practice to state the 'definition' you will be using and preferably the conditions for which it holds true.