science is subfield of philosophy

[Itoero]

What do you think of this statement?

Many things in what people consider mainstream science are logic ideas not based on scientific evidence. Something that concerns science but is not based on scientific evidence is  imo philosophy and not (yet)science.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Many things in what people consider mainstream science are logic ideas not based on scientific evidence.

Can you give some examples?

 

[studiot]

Up to about 400 years ago I would have agreed with that statement, but since that time there has been a divergence between the two.

 

The point is for something to be some sort of subdivision of another implies that it is wholly contained within the other.

But there are aspects of Philosophy not addressed by Science and

There are aspects of Science not addressed in Pholosophy

 

 

I seem to remember posting a Venn diagram to a similar question about Logic, Maths and Philosophy a while back.

 

Can anyone remember this thread?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Itoero said:

 Many things in what people consider mainstream science are logic ideas not based on scientific evidence.

I do not accept this premise as being true.

[Itoero]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

he point is for something to be some sort of subdivision of another implies that it is wholly contained within the other.

But there are aspects of Philosophy not addressed by Science and

There are aspects of Science not addressed in Pholosophy

With science being a subfield I point to the 'fact' that philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Science  is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science is subject to the scientific method.  Philosophy is not subject to anything.

But which aspects of science are not adressed in Philosophy?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Can you give some examples

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

do not accept this premise as being true.

In the thread "energy photon". I stated that scattering of photons causes refraction. Everyone seemed to disagree with it. People had their own idea of what is 'science', which was based on a logical interpretation and not on scientific evidence.

Many people seem to put scientific value on Einstein's ideas concerning the inside of black Holes because calculations concerning the behavior of black holes are correct. This is again based on logic....their is zero scientific evidence for what happens after an event horizon. If there was evidence then it wouldn't be an event horizon.

Everything about string theory, holographic principle and soft hair theory (of stephen hawking) are not based on scientific evidence. So how do you call those things? Its not science (yet). Considering science to be a subfield of philosophy imo explains things.

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

In the thread "energy photon". I stated that scattering of photons causes refraction. Everyone seemed to disagree with it.

Because you were wrong.

3 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Many people seem to put scientific value on Einstein's ideas concerning the inside of black Holes because calculations concerning the behavior of black holes are correct. This is again based on logic....their is zero scientific evidence for what happens after an event horizon.

Everybody knows that. But the theory is (as far as we know) correct and it is the only model we have. You could say "we can't test the theory in these conditions so we will assume it doesn't apply". That isn't logical. A more sensible default position is, "we cannot be sure it is correct but there is no evidence it isn't so we will use it until we have a better theory".

5 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Everything about string theory, holographic principle and soft hair theory (of stephen hawking) are not based on scientific evidence. So how do you call those things? Its not science (yet).

There is a branch of science call "theoretical physics".

[studiot]

11 minutes ago, Itoero said:

With science being a subfield I point to the 'fact' that philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Science  is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Science is subject to the scientific method.  Philosophy is not subject to anything.

 

I said it was not a subfield.

You have not yet established that it is or even offered anysupporting evidence, as I did for my counterclaim.

13 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 

But which aspects of science are not adressed in Philosophy?

 

One of many answers to that question  is "the determination of the exact ratio of charge to mass for the electron"

Why did you not give Science as well as Philosophy a capital letter?

Do you have a down on Science?

Why did you not also ask what areas of Philosophy are not addressed by Science?

I might respond

"The reason why I don't like mayonnaise on my chips but you perhaps do".

 

 

[swansont]

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

 In the thread "energy photon". I stated that scattering of photons causes refraction. Everyone seemed to disagree with it. People had their own idea of what is 'science', which was based on a logical interpretation and not on scientific evidence.

Is refraction based on logic rather than evidence? 

5 hours ago, Itoero said:

Many people seem to put scientific value on Einstein's ideas concerning the inside of black Holes because calculations concerning the behavior of black holes are correct. This is again based on logic....their is zero scientific evidence for what happens after an event horizon. If there was evidence then it wouldn't be an event horizon.

Everything about string theory, holographic principle and soft hair theory (of stephen hawking) are not based on scientific evidence. So how do you call those things? Its not science (yet). Considering science to be a subfield of philosophy imo explains things.

Part of science is prediction, based on models. We then attempt to confirm those predictions. Models are not logic, and science acknowledges that these are (as yet) unconfirmed predictions.

[Lord Antares]

Philosophy is, in some ways, diametrically opposite to science.

In philosophy, there is no truth, nothing you can universally agree upon. Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things. Science works hard to be opposite of that. There is no opinion in science, there is only fact. There are no equally valid views, there is simply a right one and wrong ones. In science, there are such things as evidence, correct, and empirically supported.

On 1/27/2018 at 12:52 PM, Itoero said:

Something that concerns science but is not based on scientific evidence is  imo philosophy and not (yet)science.

This is true and I agree. For example, the ever so appealing ''theory'' of the holographic universe and life being an illusion. There is no possible way to prove or disprove this and it makes no difference in anything we do or learn. It is quite possibly not even possible to prove it or find how it impacts life. Therefore, it cannot be scientific, but it can be bad philosophy at best.

[studiot]

Quote

Lord antares

Philosophy is, in some ways, diametrically opposite to science.

In philosophy, there is no truth, nothing you can universally agree upon. Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things. Science works hard to be opposite of that. There is no opinion in science, there is only fact. There are no equally valid views, there is simply a right one and wrong ones. In science, there are such things as evidence, correct, and empirically supported.

On 27/01/2018 at 11:52 AM, Itoero said:

Something that concerns science but is not based on scientific evidence is  imo philosophy and not (yet)science.

This is true and I agree. For example, the ever so appealing ''theory'' of the holographic universe and life being an illusion. There is no possible way to prove or disprove this and it makes no difference in anything we do or learn. It is quite possibly not even possible to prove it or find how it impacts life. Therefore, it cannot be scientific, but it can be bad philosophy at best.

Hmm, let me see if I can apply those principles.

So the length of my garden is Philosophical until I take a tape measure and meaure it, then it becomes Scientific?

But the length of the coastline of Britain (after Mandlebrot) is a definite fact that is measurable with a tape measure?

[Lord Antares]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

Hmm, let me see if I can apply those principles.

So the length of my garden is Philosophical until I take a tape measure and meaure it, then it becomes Scientific?

But the length of the coastline of Britain (after Mandlebrot) is a definite fact that is measurable with a tape measure?

No, not at all. I might have expressed myself wrong. I see your point. The stuff that is either true or isn't and can be proven but isn't yet, isn't philosophy. It's the things which cannot be proven or aren't ''true or false'', like the holographic universe, determinism and the vague metaphysics stuff.

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

But the length of the coastline of Britain (after Mandlebrot) is a definite fact that is measurable with a tape measure?

Actually, it can't be measured definitively. The length depends on the scale at which you measure it.

So the fact of measuring it could be a scientific activity. But discussing what that measurement means is a philosophical one.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

I see your point.

 

Thank you.

But my subtext is that the OP question/assertion was "Science is a subfield of Philosophy".

And I have outlined my objection.

To use some set terminology

Any subject that is in the intersection of Science and Philosophy will obviously be common to both provices.

But there are subjects that are in the disjunction of the two.

 

In generating my examples I have realised that the Scientific examples are very specific and limited, whereas those offered for Philosophy are much more general and wide ranging.

This is an observation not a rigid distinction.

[Eise]

 

1 hour ago, Lord Antares said:

Almost every opinion is as valid as every other and in most cases, nothing to be correct about; it's just views on different things.

So in philosophy, one learns a lot of opinions, and there is no argumentation about the validity of these opinions. Every philosophical 'opinion' is just as valid as any other? And that is the reason one can study it at university level?

On 27.1.2018 at 12:52 PM, Itoero said:

What do you think of this statement?

That it is wrong. The topic of science is empirical reality: physics studies matter, chemistry studies chemical reactions, biology the living nature etc etc. Philosophy studies our way of thinking, tries to find out which ways of thinking lead to valid conclusions.

Somebody who studies matter is a physicist; somebody who studies how a physicist comes to valid conclusions (i.e. reflects about the scientific method), is a philosopher. (Of course somebody can be both). Another example is morality: somebody who asks what action seems moral to him is considering morality. Somebody who reflects on how people argue for how we think morally, and what kind of arguments may lead to valid moral propositions is an ethicist, i.e. he is doing philosophy.

It seems to me that you see scientific speculation as philosophy. It is not. Good scientific speculations lead to predictions that can be empirically tested. And even scientific speculations where we have yet no idea how we can test them, are still not philosophy, because of their topic: things in reality, not our way of thinking.

[Lord Antares]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

So in philosophy, one learns a lot of opinions, and there is no argumentation about the validity of these opinions. Every philosophical 'opinion' is just as valid as any other? And that is the reason one can study it at university level?

No. But you cannot prove that your opinion is more valid, unlike science.

[Eise]

16 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

No. But you cannot prove that your opinion is more valid, unlike science.

That still means that every opinion in philosophy is equally valid. Do you really think that?

Example:

1. Humans exist of 2 substances that can exist independently: res extensa and res cogitans, which are interconnected in the pineal gland. (Cartesian dualism)

2. The mind is a function of the living brain.

You think these are equally valid?

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Eise

[studiot]

One point about this question is that everyone seems to be treating the issue as a static one.

I think I pointed out that things change.

Even within Science there have been a similar split or divergence.

Many of the original scientists were engineers (some still are) though no distinction was once made.

Engineering began to split off to a discipline in its own right about 150 years ago.

A further split began within engineering about 50 years ago with Engineering and Technology.

 

The question of what belongs where is a dynamic one.

[Lord Antares]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

That still means that every opinion in philosophy is equally valid. Do you really think that?

Example:

1. Humans exist of 2 substances that can exist independently: res extensa and res cogitans, which are interconnected in the pineal gland. (Cartesian dualism)

2. The mind is a function of the living brain.

You think these are equally valid?

 

No I don't. But you still cannot prove it. Valid is subjective in philosophy (however right it may seem), and valid is completely objective in science.

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, Lord Antares said:

No I don't. But you still cannot prove it. Valid is subjective in philosophy (however right it may seem), and valid is completely objective in science.

There is no absolute validity in science, either. Validity is assessed within theoretical frameworks that agree with observation to various degrees.

[Lord Antares]

50 minutes ago, CharonY said:

There is no absolute validity in science, either. Validity is assessed within theoretical frameworks that agree with observation to various degrees.

But there are, nevertheless, valid and invalid theories. It is a valid observation that when an object is dropped, it will fall downwards towards the earth. The evidence that this happens is such and such and is empirical. There is no such thing in philosophy. There are more and less valid observations in philosophy, but there is no evidence of that to the degree that science has.

[studiot]

3 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

It is a valid observation that when an object is dropped, it will fall downwards towards the earth.

 

And yet every time I drop my helium balloon it floats stubbornly upwards and I have to get a new one.

[CharonY]

Saying that things drop to the ground is an observation, not a scientific prediction. Theories why it happens are valid to a certain degree, only. In theoretical sciences as well as philosophy (and mathematics) you can create a framework and make valid deductions within them. 

What you seem to refer to is apparently the degree of accuracy with which these frameworks can predict empirical observations. However, that could be considered a limited subset.

[OldChemE]

At the risk of maybe offending someone (for which I will apologize in advance), comparing Philosphy and science seems to me to be almost (but not quite) like comparing Barbers and Doctors.Many years ago I attended some sort of seminar (can't remember the details) where the speaker commented on the origins of medicine.  He commented on the practice of bleeding people to remove evil elements, which was done by barbers.  He then pointed out that from this simple practice eventually we developed medicine and the profession of Doctors, whereas the barbers were still just cutting hair.  I do agree that Philosphy is more advanced than that, but still believe the comparison has merit.

Edited January 30, 2018 by OldChemE

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, OldChemE said:

At the risk of maybe offending someone (for which I will apologize in advance), comparing Philosphy and science seems to me to be almost (but not quite) like comparing Barbers and Doctors.Many years ago I attended some sort of seminar (can't remember the details) where the speaker commented on the origins of medicine.  He commented on the practice of bleeding people to remove evil elements, which was done by barbers.  He then pointed out that from this simple practice eventually we developed medicine and the profession of Doctors, whereas the barbers were still just cutting hair.  I do agree that Philosphy is more advanced than that, but still believe the comparison has merit.

Barbers evolved to surgeons. That's why they are called 'Mr' (or 'Ms') in the UK, and elsewhere, because their training route was different to doctors.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, OldChemE said:

At the risk of maybe offending someone (for which I will apologize in advance), comparing Philosphy and science seems to me to be almost (but not quite) like comparing Barbers and Doctors.Many years ago I attended some sort of seminar (can't remember the details) where the speaker commented on the origins of medicine.  He commented on the practice of bleeding people to remove evil elements, which was done by barbers.  He then pointed out that from this simple practice eventually we developed medicine and the profession of Doctors, whereas the barbers were still just cutting hair.  I do agree that Philosphy is more advanced than that, but still believe the comparison has merit.

As do a increasing number of scientists these days....eg: Professor Lawrence Krauss.