Did Science Break from Philosophy? Why and When? Who Made the Call?

[B. John Jones]

Is science maintained from it's philosophic origin, or is there a definitive break from philosophy?

 

If science is maintained with philosophy, how do we ask scientific questions, and answer them, with integrity, without reference to ethos, pathos and logos?

 

If this latter question is irrelevant because we don't maintain with philosophy, who decided science is removed from it's most natural definition: a discrete and ordered way to observe and study nature? I'm not a scientist, but looking at a leaf under a magnifying glass, or observing the patterns of the the night sky, in my judgment, is scientific. Relating historical, social, and all literary substance with science seems necessary to me. Inasmuch as math, anthropology and archeology are direct components of science, I believe every evidence should be admitted to the scientific process.

[Strange]

I would say that they drifted apart as science become more focussed on testing ideas against the real world in rigorous and objective ways. While philosophy is more about analysing ideas: taking them apart and asking questions about them.

 

So, philosophy is about asking better questions and science is one way of getting useful answers.

 

Note that an important aspect of science is that it works: i.e. it is productive. In other words, science can be used as the basis of technologies that, for example, give us better medicines or mobile phones. And that is where things like ethics, etc. should come into it: what technologies should we develop and what should we use them for. (Philosophy obviously also has a role in defining the methods used in science.)

[B. John Jones]

I would say that they drifted apart as science become more focussed on testing ideas against the real world in rigorous and objective ways. While philosophy is more about analysing ideas: taking them apart and asking questions about them.

 

So, philosophy is about asking better questions and science is one way of getting useful answers.

 

Note that an important aspect of science is that it works: i.e. it is productive. In other words, science can be used as the basis of technologies that, for example, give us better medicines or mobile phones. And that is where things like ethics, etc. should come into it: what technologies should we develop and what should we use them for. (Philosophy obviously also has a role in defining the methods used in science.)

 

But there are so many fields of science. Why should there be the absence of a field maintaining philosophy? It seems calculated to me.

[Strange]

 

But there are so many fields of science. Why should there be the absence of a field maintaining philosophy? It seems calculated to me.

 

 

But philosophy, by its nature, does not attempt to do rigorous modelling and testing of ideas. If a philosopher does that, then he is doing science not philosophy. They are different disciplines with different approaches (and different purposes).

[dimreepr]

It seems calculated to me.

 

 

 

By whom and for what purpose?

[B. John Jones]

 

 

But philosophy, by its nature, does not attempt to do rigorous modelling and testing of ideas. If a philosopher does that, then he is doing science not philosophy. They are different disciplines with different approaches (and different purposes).

False dichotomy. A magnifying glass is rigorous. Human observation by the human mind is rigorous.

[Strange]

False dichotomy. A magnifying glass is rigorous. Human observation by the human mind is rigorous.

 

 

It is not a false dichotomy, at all.

 

Does philosophy make mathematical models to describe things? No.

Does science make mathematical models to describe things? Yes.

Does philosophy use instruments to make accurate measurements in order to test those models? No.

Does science use instruments to make accurate measurements in order to test those models? Yes.

 

Does science analyse abstract ideas by repeatedly asking questions? No.

Does philosophy analyse abstract ideas by repeatedly asking questions? Yes.

We have different words for different areas of human endeavour (art, science, religion, science, mathematics, philosophy, technology, music, engineering, poetry) because they have different purposes, roles, methods, and results. Why do you want to smash them all into one thing?

[B. John Jones]

 

 

 

By whom and for what purpose?

How would I know. The original father of Dawkins and Darwin I guess. I don't know, the antichrist I guess.

 

Or maybe Rome. Or the Romans.

Give me 3 solid definitions of logic. With 1 endorsement each.

 

3 defs, one person per def.

Edited May 31, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

How would I know. The original father of Dawkins and Darwin I guess. I don't know, the antichrist I guess.

 

Why are you inventing a conspiracy and a conflict where none exists?

 

Give me 3 solid definitions of logic. With 1 endorsement each.

 

What do you mean by "logic"?

 

"possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", also related to λόγος (logos), "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle" (Liddell & Scott 1999; Online Etymology Dictionary 2001).

 

There are many forms of logic, for example:

• Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on many conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions of logic', below.
• Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.
• Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.
• Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.

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

[B. John Jones]

 

 

It is not a false dichotomy, at all.

 

Does philosophy make mathematical models to describe things? No.

Does science make mathematical models to describe things? Yes.

Does philosophy use instruments to make accurate measurements in order to test those models? No.

Does science use instruments to make accurate measurements in order to test those models? Yes.

 

Does science analyse abstract ideas by repeatedly asking questions? No.

Does philosophy analyse abstract ideas by repeatedly asking questions? Yes.

We have different words for different areas of human endeavour (art, science, religion, science, mathematics, philosophy, technology, music, engineering, poetry) because they have different purposes, roles, methods, and results. Why do you want to smash them all into one thing?

 

If a child uses his 10 fingers to count apples and oranges aren't his 2 hands a mathematical model?

 

If a mature man uses a "simple" calculator to survey land, is his calculator an accurate instrument?

 

Has a living, functioning human being or scientist ever lived a full life having never revisited and re-partitioning a question?

 

Why are you inventing a conspiracy and a conflict where none exists?

 

 

What do you mean by "logic"?

 

"possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", also related to λόγος (logos), "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle" (Liddell & Scott 1999; Online Etymology Dictionary 2001).

 

There are many forms of logic, for example:

• Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on many conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions of logic', below.
• Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.
• Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.
• Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.

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

 

I didn't ask for forms or adjectives. The noun, logic. Define it. One definition. Per person. One endorsement per definition.

Edited May 31, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

 

If a child uses his 10 fingers to count apples and oranges aren't his 2 hands a mathematical model?

 

If a mature man uses a "simple" calculator to survey land, is his calculator an accurate instrument?

 

 

Those could both be considered the basic steps of a scientific approach.

 

I didn't for forms or adjectives. The noun, logic. Define it. One definition. Per person. One endorsement per definition.

 

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com

[Robittybob1]

 

...

 

I didn't ask for forms or adjectives. The noun, logic. Define it. One definition. Per person. One endorsement per definition.

Do you think it is impossible? Why ask such a question?

[B. John Jones]

You can't do it. You guys can't provide a simple definition of logic. Originally, there was a simple definition. You guys can say what you want, and as long as you can silence the people outside you unity, you think you hold sway. A unity divided will not stand.

Edited May 31, 2016 by B. John Jones

[swansont]

False dichotomy. ... Human observation by the human mind is rigorous.

Um, no.

[Strange]

You can't do it. You guys can't provide a simple definition of logic.

 

 

Why are you lying? I gave you a definition. You chose to reject it. That is your problem.

 

 

 

Originally, there was a simple definition.

 

What is that, then?

 

 

 

You guys can say what you want, and as long as you can silence the people outside you unity, you think you hold sway. A unity divided will not stand.

 

What unity? Who is being silenced? What are you talking about?

[swansont]

You can't do it. You guys can't provide a simple definition of logic. Originally, there was a simple definition. You guys can say what you want, and as long as you can silence the people outside you unity, you think you hold sway. A unity divided will not stand.

Science gets compared to nature. Nature can't be silenced.

[B. John Jones]

 

 

Why are you lying? I gave you a definition. You chose to reject it. That is your problem.

 

 

What is that, then?

 

 

What unity? Who is being silenced? What are you talking about?

You didn't answer the question, as asked.

Science gets compared to nature. Nature can't be silenced.

Science can't be compared to nature. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

[andrewcellini]

You didn't answer the question, as asked.

Science can't be compared to nature. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

The word science can refer to both the scientific method and the body of knowledge gathered through its use. So you could and indeed must compare science in the latter sense to nature in order to do science in the former.

[StringJunky]

You didn't answer the question, as asked.

Science can't be compared to nature. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

Science is the discipline of objectively describing nature.

[Strange]

You didn't answer the question, as asked.

 

 

No. I gave you a link to a dictionary. You are too demanding.

I should say that, of course, I am exaggerating to highlight why science and philosophy are different and therefore why they have grown apart.

 

There is a lot of overlap, and some knowledge of one can help the other. For one thing, the methods used in science are defined by philosophy. But also, the processes a scientist goes through in designing an experiment are similar to those in philosophy: coming up with questions, analysing what they mean, what is missing etc. How can I test this? What other explanations could there be? How do I eliminate those? What sources of errors are there? How do I design the experiment to avoid them? And so on ...

 

And if the experiment involves people (medicine, psychology, etc) then there will be all sorts of ethical and moral questions as well. Starting with, "should we do this experiment?" as well as "what should we tell them?" and "what information can we use?"

[ajb]

Is science maintained from it's philosophic origin, or is there a definitive break from philosophy?

Maybe there is not a definitive break, science uses the philosophy of the 'scientific method'. The key concept is testing against nature. Philosophy is seen as thinking really hard, but science is then thinking really hard and then doing experiments! (Loosley, and not every scientist is involved with each step of science.)

 

The two names that spring to mind are Francis Bacon -- who push the philosophy of the scientific method -- and Galileo Galilei -- who is considered the farther of modern physics.

 

If science is maintained with philosophy, how do we ask scientific questions, and answer them, with integrity, without reference to ethos, pathos and logos?

By trying to stick to the scientific method. You need to ask questions that can be tested against nature; in principle anyway.

 

I'm not a scientist, but looking at a leaf under a magnifying glass, or observing the patterns of the the night sky, in my judgment, is scientific.

As a hobby, this is 'science'. But it is not science as professionals would view it -- depending on exactly what you are doing. Still, keep on observing.

 

Relating historical, social, and all literary substance with science seems necessary to me. Inasmuch as math, anthropology and archeology are direct components of science, I believe every evidence should be admitted to the scientific process.

Almost everything can be approached with the scientifc method, it just depends on what you want to get out.

[swansont]

Science can't be compared to nature. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

Looking isn't part of comparing? Science is more than looking. You also measure, and if your predictions don't match what you observe, you know you don't have the science right, and you change it.

[kisai]

Sir Francis Bacon is often credited for introducing a more rigorous standard to science, but its possible that he was inspired by other breaking scientists in his peer group.

 

 

 

If science is maintained with philosophy, how do we ask scientific questions, and answer them, with integrity, without reference to ethos, pathos and logos?

 

We look to nature and discard unnecessary entities.

Edited June 1, 2016 by kisai

[dimreepr]

You can't do it. You guys can't provide a simple definition of logic. Originally, there was a simple definition. You guys can say what you want, and as long as you can silence the people outside you unity, you think you hold sway. A unity divided will not stand.

 

 

I can point to several of your posts as examples of what logic isn't; will that do?

There’s a saying amongst poker players that seems applicable here, ‘If you can’t spot the fish, you are one’.

[B. John Jones]

Do you think it is impossible? Why ask such a question?

It's not impossible but modern science is so inconsistent because you guys won't put it out right. I'm asking you a very simple task and your skirting around it as if your afraid to commit.

 

Why are you inventing a conspiracy and a conflict where none exists?

 

 

What do you mean by "logic"?

 

"possessed of reason, intellectual, dialectical, argumentative", also related to λόγος (logos), "word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason, or principle" (Liddell & Scott 1999; Online Etymology Dictionary 2001).

 

There are many forms of logic, for example:

• Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an important branch of informal logic. Since much informal argument is not strictly speaking deductive, on many conceptions of logic, informal logic is not logic at all. See 'Rival conceptions of logic', below.
• Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle. In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuances of natural language.
• Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two main branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.
• Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.

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

 

I was born in 1975. The antichrist was spoken of nearly 2 millennia ago. So I don't think I invented the charges against them.