CarbonCopy Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 What is the exact difference between science and philosophy, aren't both a study of nature, and doesn't both of them attempt to explain nature ? So, why the distinction ? Please explain !
ajb Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 What is the exact difference between science and philosophy, aren't both a study of nature, and doesn't both of them attempt to explain nature ? So, why the distinction ? Please explain ! Science will be based on empirical evidence. That is we have measurements that we can compare with our theoretical understanding; meaning mathematical models. Philosophy does not require the hard work of linking your ideas to reality in the way sciences does. In particular, one cannot argue a philosophical point of view from empirical evidence. The best one can do is say that a particular philosophical point of view has served you well, up till now. I may be a little harsh here on philosophy, and I do believe that having some overall ideas to guide your thinking is good.
tomgwyther Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 IMO: Science deals with how things are; philosophy deals with how things aught to be. or Science shows us how and why an apple falls to the ground; philosophy asks "How many apples make a heap?" or Philosophy asks questions, whilst science attempts to answer them. Science and philosophy aren't inseparable, but I would maintain that they are linked to each other.
Dekan Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 IMO: Science shows us how and why an apple falls to the ground; philosophy asks "How many apples make a heap?" or Philosophy asks questions, whilst science attempts to answer them. Science and philosophy aren't inseparable, but I would maintain that they are linked to each other. You're right that they're linked. But perhaps Philosophy lacks the precision of Science. As might be demonstrated by your interesting "apples" example. This asks "How many apples make a heap?" Surely Science would quickly resolve this - by introducing a precise definition of the term "heap". Defining it, perhaps, as - "a group of 10 or more objects". Under this definition, 10 apples would constitute a "heap", but 9 apples wouldn't. Wouldn't that sort it out, and end any further philosophical debate?
Villain Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 What is the exact difference between science and philosophy, aren't both a study of nature, and doesn't both of them attempt to explain nature ? So, why the distinction ? Please explain ! Your question is an example of philosophy. The concept of science is a product of philosophy.
ajb Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Defining it, perhaps, as - "a group of 10 or more objects". Under this definition, 10 apples would constitute a "heap", but 9 apples wouldn't. Let [math]A[/math] be the set of all apples. A heap of rank [math]p \in N[/math] is any map [math]h : A \longrightarrow Hp[/math], where [math]Hp [/math] is a proper subset of [math]A[/math] of cardinality [math]p[/math].
tomgwyther Posted November 1, 2012 Posted November 1, 2012 Let be the set of all apples. A heap of rank is any map , where is a proper subset of of cardinality . Is this an example of taking Sorites paradox too far? How far is too far? As with 'how many apples [grains of sand in Eubulides' case'] make a heap; the question 'how far is too far' is a demonstrative example of the sort of questions philosophy tends to deal with.
ajb Posted November 2, 2012 Posted November 2, 2012 Is this an example of taking Sorites paradox too far? How far is too far? As with 'how many apples [grains of sand in Eubulides' case'] make a heap; the question 'how far is too far' is a demonstrative example of the sort of questions philosophy tends to deal with. I would say it is Sorites paradox, of sorts. By my definition, one apple constitutes a heap; we have a map from the set of all apples to one specified apple, we have a heap of rank 1. More than this we have that no apples also constitutes a heap; a map from the set of all apples to the empty set is a heap of rank zero. Of course, this all assumes that the set of all apples is well-defined. If not, let us just make the redefinition of [math]A[/math] as the set of all apples at our disposal.
PeterJ Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Philosophy is also based on empirical evidence. It is just that this evidence is used a starting point and limitation on analysis, and is not the end of the investigation. Science produces the data and partial nonreductive theories, philosophy tries to join up the dots and see the big picture. Eg QM is good theory in science, but philosophy would want an interpretation before it even becomes a theory. Roughly speaking...
ZVBXRPL Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 What is the exact difference between science and philosophy, aren't both a study of nature, and doesn't both of them attempt to explain nature ? So, why the distinction ? Please explain ! Scientists are arrogant and narrow minded and can only see inside the box Philosophers are easy going and open minded and can imagine the box does not even exist
immortal Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 What is the exact difference between science and philosophy, aren't both a study of nature, and doesn't both of them attempt to explain nature ? So, why the distinction ? Please explain ! Philosophy is the universal Set and science and religion are its subsets, that's why we have a philosophy of science and a philosophy of religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion
dimreepr Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Scientists are arrogant and narrow minded and can only see inside the box Philosophers are easy going and open minded and can imagine the box does not even exist Arrogance has many faces... 2
PeterJ Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 I cannot agree that generally philosophers are open minded. On average I find them just as set in their ways as any group of people. Indeed, the fact that there is a tradition of philosophy called 'western' which is a failure, and which can be safely characterised as mere 'footnotes to Plato', more or less proves narrow-mindedness. It is physicists who were able to open their minds to quantum mechanics. For the most part philosophers have yet to get out of the Newtonian box.
CarbonCopy Posted January 10, 2013 Author Posted January 10, 2013 I cannot agree that generally philosophers are open minded. On average I find them just as set in their ways as any group of people. Indeed, the fact that there is a tradition of philosophy called 'western' which is a failure, and which can be safely characterised as mere 'footnotes to Plato', more or less proves narrow-mindedness. It is physicists who were able to open their minds to quantum mechanics. For the most part philosophers have yet to get out of the Newtonian box. I agree with you. Nice point.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now