A child (Science) greater than its parent (Philosophy) ?

[studiot]

Rome split from Ancient Greece and became a greater nation.

America split from England and became a greater nation.

What we now call Physics and Chemistry used to be called Natural Philosophy.

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

[swansont]

It split when we started testing ideas and making more detailed predictions. You can test the notion that heavier things fall faster than lighter ones, but nobody bothered to see if Aristotle's philosophical idea held up for almost 2000 years until Galileo did it. Ditto for crystal spheres and orbits. We finally discarded that notion because elliptical orbits worked better (simpler model) and made more sense

[exchemist]

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

Rome split from Ancient Greece and became a greater nation.

America split from England and became a greater nation.

What we now call Physics and Chemistry used to be called Natural Philosophy.

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

I'm not sure everyone agrees they are greater disciplines. I'm inclined to resist potentially invidious rankings of that sort. 

I think the split came about due to empiricism - and the huge push that got with the invention of suitable instruments by which nature could be studied (telescope etc), and the invention of the printing press which gave like-minded experimenters an easy way to read of one another's work. I suppose people like Roger Bacon and Ibn Al Haytham were the first since the ancient Greeks, but it only got properly off the ground after the Renaissance.   

 

[Prometheus]

Although the ancient Greeks are best known for their rational approach, they had empiricists among them - the Empiric school of medicine for instance.

I know Greek thought influenced early Islamic thought and science which later influenced Renaissance thought, but no idea to what degree. Is it @joigus who knows some Islamic history who can maybe comment?

Edited July 8, 2021 by Prometheus

[dimreepr]

Empiricism, is just another ism; if not used properly.

I don't believe the child fully understands it's parents, yet...

If I can't see it or measure it or predict it, it's not there...

[beecee]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

What we now call Physics and Chemistry used to be called Natural Philosophy.

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

Natural philosphy imo laid the ground work or foundation of the main sciences at the time of  Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Earth Science, and Astronomy.

I once saw a pyramid that illustrated the ranking [for want of a better word] of the sciences, with physics as the base and ranked as listed. Mathematics was deemed the language of physics.

While the philosophical foundation laid the groundwork and was largely responsible for the success and acceptance of the scientific method, the more hands on approach dictated by the scientific method, saw the sciences rise above that level. This was I beleive what Lawrence Krauss was basically saying in recent times, and for which he copped plenty of criticism, some udeserved imo.

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Natural philosphy

That's an interesting phrase, since no science is required... 😉

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

It's an insidious generational problem, our society knows more now (better technology, that our parent's don't understand), ergo we're smarter.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's an interesting phrase, since no science is required... 😉

Wiki describes it as the study of nature and the universe.

Newton's "Principia Mathemtica" translates to  "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" 

"Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy".

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wiki describes it as the study of nature and the universe.

Newton's "Principia Mathemtica" translates to  "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" 

"Empirical science historically developed out of philosophy".

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy

You got there before me.

Quote

Wikipedia

Sir Isaac Newton PRS (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27^[a]) was an English mathematician, physicist, astronomer, theologian, and author (described in his time as a "natural philosopher") who is widely recognised as one of the greatest mathematicians and most influential scientists of all time. A key figure in the scientific revolution, his book Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), first published in 1687, established classical mechanics. Newton also made seminal contributions to optics, and shares credit with German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for developing the infinitesimal calculus.

 

At Cambridge, Natural Philosophy was changed to Natural Sciences in 1851.

Quote

Cambridge University

1851

The Natural Sciences Tripos is first examined, loosening the stranglehold of mathematics and classics on the syllabus, and opening the door to modern studies of the arts and sciences.

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Wiki describes it as the study of nature and the universe.

I consider myself as a natural philosopher (not necessarily a good one), but I'm definitely not a scientist, my ignorance is plain for all to see; I couldn't even compose an essay.

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I consider myself as a natural philosopher (not necessarily a good one), but I'm definitely not a scientist, my ignorance is plain for all to see; I couldn't even compose an essay.

Yes today we use these terms differently from what was done in the past.

Which is what I said.

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Yes today we use these terms differently from what was done in the past.

Which is what I said.

That doesn't explain why it's better...

Putting all our faith, in just one solution, is an ism and not very scientific.

[joigus]

5 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Although the ancient Greeks are best known for their rational approach, they had empiricists among them - the Empiric school of medicine for instance.

I know Greek thought influenced early Islamic thought and science which later influenced Renaissance thought, but no idea to what degree. Is it @joigus who knows some Islamic history who can maybe comment?

Thanks for the mention. I'm in the middle of reading the thread so far. I'm no expert on Islam; rather, a person very interested on the history of Islam, and still largely learning about it.

After the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661) and the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus (661-750), which are characterized by waves of conversion, civil wars, internal dissent on interpretation of the Q'uran, etc., comes the Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258) (1261–1517). This first period of the Abbasids is the one that we traditionally associate to the flourishing of, not only science, but also religious studies, poetry, astronomy, and what not; mainly in Baghdad. The scholars' capital, so to speak. The date 1258 corresponds to the fall of Baghdad under the Mongols, which caused the destruction of vast amounts of scholarly treasures. Baghdad, and the Islamic world, never recovered from this blow. But people (scholars from the three monotheistic traditions) survived, and for a while formed a thriving community in Toledo during 12th-13th centuries, even previous to the final blooming of modern science as we know it mainly in Italy. They were kind of intellectual refugees. Then it was Italy who took the torch, and finally many ideas from (not just) the Greeks, but also India (eg, the concept of zero) and Babylon (eg, hexadecimal system), and very importantly, the Arabic numerals, which really gave rise to the scientific side of the Renaissance.

The most relevant Muslim countries that have undertaken any kind of attempt at a scientific comeback are of course, Turkey (under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk) and Pakistan (under Liaquat Ali Khan).

These are the highlights on Islam and science as I know them at this stage. I've filled in some details from Wikipedia, of course.

BTW, this is a very nice thread, @studiot.

[joigus]

8 hours ago, studiot said:

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

The roots of science as we know it, I think, are already present in Roger Bacon and Galileo. It's this emphasis on observation and careful measurement that really did it.

I see some kind of fruitful meandering from the empirical side (Francis Bacon) to the mathematical/rational part (Descartes). Advances have come in successive emphasis on one and the other. Aristotle (empirical emphasis) got his physics badly wrong. Much later, Descartes (pure reason, mathematics) got his biology of sorts badly wrong. I think this tension echoes through the centuries even today (cosmology; multiverse, pre-big-bang scenarios).

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

I'm not sure everyone agrees they are greater disciplines. I'm inclined to resist potentially invidious rankings of that sort. 

 

"Greater" as more efficient, more influential at the grassroots level, more present in people's minds if only to the effect of disagreeing with it, or setting in motion waves of counter-opinion, or even just wondering what it means or implies, I think science is more influential than philosophy. I can hardly think of anything like the denial campaigns on global warming and the possible human influence on it would have happened had it been a question on purely philosophical epistemology.

[studiot]

11 hours ago, joigus said:

"Greater" as more efficient, more influential at the grassroots level, more present in people's minds if only to the effect of disagreeing with it, or setting in motion waves of counter-opinion, or even just wondering what it means or implies, I think science is more influential than philosophy. I can hardly think of anything like the denial campaigns on global warming and the possible human influence on it would have happened had it been a question on purely philosophical epistemology.

Thank you for your input including this, where you seem to be the only one that fully understands English. +1

Great or greater means enlarged (in some way) as in Great Britain, Greater London, Greater Manchester and so on.

I suppose on the questionable principle that 'bigger is better' it has also come to mean better or wonderful (in the sense of very good).

The scope and reach of Science has far outstripped that of Philosophy in modern times.

 

[dimreepr]

7 hours ago, studiot said:

The scope and reach of Science has far outstripped that of Philosophy in modern times.

Are you sure about that?

As far as I can see, Science without philosophy has stripped our world of a future...

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you sure about that?

As far as I can see, Science without philosophy has stripped our world of a future...

If you mean the promotion of greed then I don't think you can lay that at the door of Science (or Philosophy either).

Personally I would look towards Big Business (though not all of it).

But everyone is entitled to their opinion, even a Gloucestershire supporter.

🙂

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

If you mean the promotion of greed then I don't think you can lay that at the door of Science (or Philosophy either).

Indeed, but here we are?

 

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but here we are?

Well I voted for my villain of the piece in my last post.

[Holmes]

On 7/8/2021 at 5:11 AM, dimreepr said:

If I can't see it or measure it or predict it, it's not there...

That's a philosophical statement right there.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Holmes said:

That's a philosophical statement right there.

More of a postulate of science. Not invoking things that can't ever be experimentally confirmed. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, studiot said:

If you mean the promotion of greed then I don't think you can lay that at the door of Science (or Philosophy either).

Personally I would look towards Big Business (though not all of it).

But everyone is entitled to their opinion, even a Gloucestershire supporter.

🙂

No, I was thinking of the promotion of advancement, without the brake of philosophy. 

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by dimreepr

[tylers100]

Borg

Without or discontinuing philosophy, then...

Borg: "Resistance is futile."

As “Borg” we would be completely striving for the perfection according to observed evidences and mechanisms in science outside of inner ourselves, potentially impairing / neglecting / or ignoring our natural course of human development and freewill. That is off-balance.

There could be a good reason why the 'Q' character in Star Trek TNG, "introduced" the Enterprise to the Borg.. as written and shown.

[dimreepr]

Resistance is futile, the clarion call of those that don't want to be questioned...

[Peterkin]

On 7/8/2021 at 7:11 AM, studiot said:

Rome split from Ancient Greece and became a greater nation.

 

I don't think that's quite what happened or how it happened. Rome didn't split from Greece; Rome conquered Greece, and being the less advanced civilization, destroyed much of its cultural refinement, while appropriating the bits they liked - just as they did from every conquered nation. It became a more powerful empire, because of its military might. 

Quote

What we now call Physics and Chemistry used to be called Natural Philosophy.

So Where, When, How and Why did Science split from Philosophy and do we think they are now the greater discipline ?

  Again, the real picture is a little more complicated and blurry. The ancient Greeks practiced some pretty sophisticated science - in astronomy, navigation, architecture, hygiene and medicine. Archimedes, Pythagoras, Eratosthenes, Empedocles, Hippocrates II and many more, contributed substantially to the sciences that European Renaissance thinkers rediscovered after the dark ages.  They already had separate disciplines in higher education. Philosophy didn't exactly give birth to science; rather, all avenues of human inquiry were followed, concurrently, as far as the resources of the time allowed.

Much later, with a surge in human population and resource-exploitation, specialized studies branched off and grew into disciplines of their own, both in the sciences and humanities. 

Here is a wonderful introduction to how it all fits together in classical studies. https://www.classics.pitt.edu/research/ancient-philosophy-and-science