Significance of Philosophy in Science

[Jori Gervasio R. Benzon]

Science gives power and power requires guidance which philosophy can provides. We say that science has made things better. I have two thoughts on this statement. First, it is not just science, but the good use of science that made things better. Now what is good. Only philosophy can provide the answer. Second if things got better, why is it better - what is good in the first place. Again philosophy, not science gives the answer. Any answer is unscientific. Philosophy is unscientific but unscientific does not mean not true. For instance a mere hypothesis is unscientific, but it can shown to be true later after an experiment. In conclusion, science needs philosophy because it needs direction and guidance.

[joigus]

Define good (vs. bad) use of science. Define making things better. Define what is good.

It's clear to me that just good is better than just better. A little better is certainly not as satisfying a lot better.

I have clear ideas about "better than nothing".

19 minutes ago, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

science needs philosophy because it needs direction and guidance.

Agreed, but... Are all possible directions equally good?

[dimreepr]

52 minutes ago, joigus said:

Define good (vs. bad) use of science. Define making things better. Define what is good.

It's clear to me that just good is better than just better. A little better is certainly not as satisfying a lot better.

I have clear ideas about "better than nothing".

Agreed, but... Are all possible directions equally good?

Indeed, it's a ying yang thing; all possible directions have the potential to be good, even the one's that immediately lead to the bad.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, it's a ying yang thing; all possible directions have the potential to be good, even the one's that immediately lead to the bad.

That's why we have idioms as 'blessing in disguise.' 

[TheVat]

Do we not already have two largish threads on this topic??

All packed with opinions from people who tell us they've never studied philosophy, don't know the relevant branches of philosophy, then post lengthy opinions based on a few quotes they've read.  

Urgh.

[Jori Gervasio R. Benzon]

What is good? Well, different philosophies offer different concepts of what is good. I think each of us have to make up our own minds on what is good. Why is saving lives good? Because our personal philosophy tells us so. We have decided that this is good. However, this is not science; this is philosophy.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

 Why is saving lives good? Because our personal philosophy tells us so. We have decided that this is good. However, this is not science; this is philosophy.

I see that as decent morals that have been learnt and handed down rather then philosophy, but then again, as TheVat has remarked, I aint a philopher, nor have I studied philosophy. 🥱

[joigus]

On 5/28/2022 at 6:53 PM, TheVat said:

Do we not already have two largish threads on this topic??

All packed with opinions from people who tell us they've never studied philosophy, don't know the relevant branches of philosophy, then post lengthy opinions based on a few quotes they've read.  

Urgh.

I bet we haven't heard the end of it.

[Eise]

On 5/28/2022 at 1:58 PM, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

Now what is good. Only philosophy can provide the answer.

No, philosophy can help to increase the quality of discussions about 'what is good', but not to answer the question directly. 

On 5/28/2022 at 1:58 PM, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

Again philosophy, not science gives the answer. Any answer is unscientific. Philosophy is unscientific but unscientific does not mean not true.

Where it is true that questions about science do not belong to that science itself, you expect too much from philosophy to provide the answers. The output of philosophy is clarification, digging up hidden assumptions, unmask logical or argumentative fallacies, etc. 

On 5/28/2022 at 1:58 PM, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

For instance a mere hypothesis is unscientific

Depends on what mean with 'mere' in this case. If you mean hypotheses from lay people, then you are right; but such hypotheses aren't philosophical either. But for a scientist, who is working in his field of expertise, hypotheses are the ground for theory building. Scientific theories do not come from nature: they come via the creativity of scientists. But only these theories are accepted, that stand empirical tests. 

On 5/28/2022 at 1:58 PM, Jori Gervasio R. Benzon said:

In conclusion, science needs philosophy because it needs direction and guidance.

For critical thinking, philosophy builds quite a good basis. That is useful for scientists too. Being aware of societal and moral consequences is also useful.