What is the difference between science and philosophy?

[Eise]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

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

More or less. Therefore I referred to the curriculum of academic philosophy: just lookup what is done at university under the flag of philosophy. Then, if one still wants a definition, it should match these topics.

But you are right, I would prefer a description above a definition of philosophy. Which is what I did in my first posting in this thread.

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, Eise said:

 

But you are right, I would prefer a description above a definition of philosophy. Which is what I did in my first posting in this thread.

Okay, definition, description, explanation of scope ....... What's in a word?

 

[Eise]

49 minutes ago, studiot said:

Okay, definition, description, explanation of scope ....... What's in a word?

 

Well, the definition of a description is different from a definition of a definition. If you know what I mean... 

 

[Area54]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Okay, definition, description, explanation of scope ....... What's in a word?

 

An opportunity to communicate with clarity?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

An opportunity to communicate with clarity?

 

Isn't that how chinese whispers got started?

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

An opportunity to communicate with clarity?

Who is "clarity" and why would I wish to communicate with them?

[Tub]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Who is "clarity" and why would I wish to communicate with them?

Ha,Ha....... nice to see some good-natured banter between you fellahs among all the weightier stuff. Anyway, i'd just like to quickly*  butt in and out with an observation that i expropriated from Denis Alexander's blog " The Various Meanings of Concordism " (  https://biologos.org/author/denis-alexander/  );  he was actually writing about science and religion but i think it applies here too: " Science and... Philosophy...each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference. " 

Peaceful co-existence is the key, i think - each discipline contributes their own pieces to the great jigsaw of knowledge and understanding and can compliment each other without stepping on each others' toes: as Eise said, Science supplies the " how? " and Philosophy the " why? ". Science can explain how i laugh, Philosophy can tell me why i laugh etc. So i think it is a little unnecessary to compare them with each other, they're just different , like a tiger is different to a toadstool. No real need to compare.

* Yes, i know i shouldn't split infinitives - i just blame William Shatner....... for everything!

[Area54]

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Who is "clarity" and why would I wish to communicate with them?

 

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Isn't that how chinese whispers got started?

Perhaps it wasn't originally "clarity", but Charity. (That's Chinese whispers for you.) We all benefit from a measure of charity in our communications.

Now as to the OP and Tub, who reversed himself and buTted in, rather than seeing Science and Philosophy as separate, I rather consider science a sub-set of Philosophy. A very effective sub-set, but a sub-set nonetheless. Now if the other sub-sets of Philosophy are as distinctive in their methods and objectives as is science, then perhaps a comparison between science and the amalgam of all those diverse sub-sets is going to be monumentally difficult. Possibly Eise couild comment on this thought.

[Tub]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

 

Perhaps it wasn't originally "clarity", but Charity. (That's Chinese whispers for you.) We all benefit from a measure of charity in our communications.

Now as to the OP and Tub, who reversed himself and buTted in, rather than seeing Science and Philosophy as separate, I rather consider science a sub-set of Philosophy. A very effective sub-set, but a sub-set nonetheless. Now if the other sub-sets of Philosophy are as distinctive in their methods and objectives as is science, then perhaps a comparison between science and the amalgam of all those diverse sub-sets is going to be monumentally difficult. Possibly Eise couild comment on this thought.

Oh dear, dear: " buTted in " ? That's terrible - you should be ashamed of yourself, lol.  I'll be interested to see how Eise replies , if he does,  buT even he might not find it too eisEy.

I recently came upon a remark by Bertrand Russell who said that Philosophy lacks the " ethical neutrality " of Science:  "..until we have learnt to think .. in ethically neutral terms, we have not arrived at a scientific attitude in Philosophy; and until we have arrived at such an attitude, it is hardly to be hoped that Philosophy will achieve any solid results "*. Quite a claim, but it was written in the very early 20th century so perhaps modern Philosophers think differently now.

* Bertrand Russell. " Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays ". ( Free to download and read on the http://bookviser.com/ app ).

Edited January 8, 2018 by Tub
citation

[Eise]

15 hours ago, Tub said:

" Science and... Philosophy...each have their own integrity as methods of inquiry, constructing their own models of reality without mutual interference. "

Every science has its own domain and methods. E.g. functional explanations have nothing to do in physics, but they are very important in biology. Philosophy has its own domain, namely our way of thinking, so not empirical reality. For empirical reality we have the sciences. However, as soon as science reflects on its own concepts and methods, it is doing philosophy. As I said in some other thread, the topic of physics is not physics, but certain aspects of empirical reality.

16 hours ago, Tub said:

as Eise said, Science supplies the " how? " and Philosophy the " why? ".

I did not say that, that was Phi for All. And I also do not agree. The 'why-question' is much too ambiguous: why does the stone fall? Because of gravity. That is definitely not philosophy. If we ask for reasons, not for causes, then it still can be exact science: why do mammals have a heart? To let the blood flow through their bodies. Still not philosophy.

17 hours ago, Tub said:

Science can explain how i laugh, Philosophy can tell me why i laugh

No. Why you laugh is a question of psychology, which is also a science (at least it tries to be). If it is justified to laugh might be a philosophical question (an ethical one, maybe. Some jokes are terribly tasteless, on the cost of Jews, Blacks, Muslims, women... you name it.)

[Tub]

36 minutes ago, Eise said:

Every science has its own domain and methods. E.g. functional explanations have nothing to do in physics, but they are very important in biology. Philosophy has its own domain, namely our way of thinking, so not empirical reality. For empirical reality we have the sciences. However, as soon as science reflects on its own concepts and methods, it is doing philosophy. As I said in some other thread, the topic of physics is not physics, but certain aspects of empirical reality.

I did not say that, that was Phi for All. And I also do not agree. The 'why-question' is much too ambiguous: why does the stone fall? Because of gravity. That is definitely not philosophy. If we ask for reasons, not for causes, then it still can be exact science: why do mammals have a heart? To let the blood flow through their bodies. Still not philosophy.

No. Why you laugh is a question of psychology, which is also a science (at least it tries to be). If it is justified to laugh might be a philosophical question (an ethical one, maybe. Some jokes are terribly tasteless, on the cost of Jews, Blacks, Muslims, women... you name it.)

Apologies for attributing Phi's quote to you, ( apologies to Phi, too ), and thanks for correcting me. 

[universaltheory]

On 04/01/2018 at 2:03 PM, geordief 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 )

Philosophy justifies what happens in the proof world(patternly a mathematical one) and what happens in the verification world (formally; a.scientific one) the way science verifies what happens in the propositional world(populary a philosophical one) and in the mathmatical world. As math proves what happens in propositional world and verification world.

Religion has nothing to do with any of the above since it is based on unchallengeable and in questionable submissiveness and conformity! No compromise with alternative justifications or proof or verification