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

[dimreepr]

You Sir, are a fish.

[B. John Jones]

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.

 

That's logical. But it's bad logic. Good logic: Science is the body of knowledge gathered through observations of nature, using free and various methods and means, usually rigorous; also those methods and means. Nature is still nature and science is science, 2 distinct entities. A stethoscope is not a biological process.

Science is the discipline of objectively describing nature.

 

Will another member please endorse string's definition of "logic?"

 

 

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’.

 

Yeah? And a good poker player keeps his business with the good poker players. So if I were really the "fish," I would to be the first to "tell" everybody about the "fish," wouldn't I? I mean, if I were a "really smart" fish.

Edited June 1, 2016 by B. John Jones

[dimreepr]

 

Yeah? And a good poker player keeps his business with the good poker players. So if I were really the "fish," I would to be the first to "tell" everybody about the "fish," wouldn't I? I mean, if I were a "really smart" fish.

 

 

 

Yep...

[B. John Jones]

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.

 

 

 

 

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?"

 

You just spent 3 (or 4) paragraphs trying to not answer a question that you could have easily answered in one sentence, in which you said, "your question is too demanding." Very logical, but bad logic.

Edited June 1, 2016 by B. John Jones

[dimreepr]

OK lets go All-In; why is it bad logic?

[StringJunky]

Will another member please endorse string's definition of "logic?"

'Logic' does not mean: that which makes sense to me. Nature can be very contrary to that and scientists understand that.

[Strange]

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.

 

 

What is wrong with the definitions and references you have been given? Why do we have to give you a definition you can look up in any dictionary?

 

 

 

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.

 

What charges?

Against whom?

[B. John Jones]

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.

 

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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

Thank you. It's interesting that all the very remarkable contributors firmly believed in God--Jesus of Nazareth to be precise, all the way to the time our chief scientific thinker, Einstein.

 

Okay, are sherds of pottery or human tools unearthed, whose origins are from ancient times a part of nature? How about fossilized wood? Papyrus? Visible script on papyrus? Ancient literature? Scripture? Aren't these specimens of nature? It's very natural for organisms, especially humans, to construct, and reconstruct, disassemble and reassemble, interpret and reinterpret. Every specimen of nature is part of the evidence.

 

Absolutely. The one thing that can't be approached scientifically is where yours and my "thinker, feeler, sensor," goes, or becomes when our limbs and fibers return to the earth. Agreed?

[Strange]

You just spent 3 (or 4) paragraphs trying to not answer a question that you could have easily answered in one sentence, in which you said, "your question is too demanding." Very logical, but bad logic.

 

 

I spent one sentence pointing out that you can look up the definition yourself. Why should I copy and paste it from a dictionary for you? Don't be so lazy.

 

The rest of that post (which was actually posted much later) was expanding on the relationship between science and philosophy (the original topic, before you started obsessing about a definition you can find in a dictionary).

[B. John Jones]

 

 

What is wrong with the definitions and references you have been given? Why do we have to give you a definition you can look up in any dictionary?

 

 

What charges?

Against whom?

Against the hater of that Great and Mighty One who loves you.

[Strange]

Thank you. It's interesting that all the very remarkable contributors firmly believed in God--Jesus of Nazareth to be precise, all the way to the time our chief scientific thinker, Einstein.

 

Not all of them. And even those who did believe in [a] god, didn't necessarily believe in your, nor in Jesus.

Against the hater of that Great and Mighty One who loves you.

 

And what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

[B. John Jones]

 

Not all of them. And even those who did believe in [a] god, didn't necessarily believe in your, nor in Jesus.

 

And what does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

I don't know. We haven't decided yet what logic is.

Science is the discipline of objectively describing nature.

Endorsed.

[Phi for All]

It's interesting that all the very remarkable contributors firmly believed in God--Jesus of Nazareth to be precise, all the way to the time our chief scientific thinker, Einstein.

 

!

Moderator Note

Untrue, off-topic, and it's preaching to pick one religion from many for your general observations in this thread. Please observe the rules you agreed to when you joined.

[Arete]

Thank you. It's interesting that all the very remarkable contributors firmly believed in God--Jesus of Nazareth to be precise, all the way to the time our chief scientific thinker, Einstein.

 

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve - Einstein was pretty explicit in stating he was NOT a deist:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

 

Edited June 1, 2016 by Arete

[andrewcellini]

 

That's logical. But it's bad logic.

make up your mind

 

Nature is still nature and science is science, 2 distinct entities. A stethoscope is not a biological process.

No one has made a claim remotely close to this.

 

Good logic: Science is the body of knowledge gathered through observations of nature, using free and various methods and means, usually rigorous; also those methods and means.

You said essentially the same thing I did, just sandwiched in a longer response and more boring to read. I still don't know what problems you are having with my post.

OK lets go All-In; why is it bad logic?

x2

Edited June 1, 2016 by andrewcellini

[Strange]

We haven't decided yet what logic is.

 

 

We know what logic is.

 

Again, what is wrong with the definitions you have been given?

[ajb]

 

Aren't these specimens of nature?

I guess so, depending on your definition of 'nature'

 

 

Absolutely. The one thing that can't be approached scientifically is where yours and my "thinker, feeler, sensor," goes, or becomes when our limbs and fibers return to the earth. Agreed?

I do not understand your question.

Edited June 2, 2016 by ajb

[B. John Jones]

I

 

 

 

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve - Einstein was pretty explicit in stating he was NOT a deist:

 

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." -- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.

-- Albert Einstein, The World as I See It

 

 

I trust Princeton far less even than I would Machiavelli. At least he was one man, and admitted he was a liar. Princeton is many folk, and subtle about their scheme.

Edited June 2, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

You are getting off topics -- Einstein's views on religion are not important in discussing the relation between philosophy and science. Einstein's views on philosophy maybe more interesting here: he does not seem to have been a great fan of metaphysics. But then one person's views do not define the 'view of science'.

[B. John Jones]

Absolutely. The one thing that can't be approached scientifically is where yours and my "thinker, feeler, sensor," goes, or becomes when our limbs and fibers return to the earth. Agreed?

 

 

I do not understand your question.

 

You had said, "Almost" everything can be analyzed scientifically. I agreed and defined your exception: Everything except one thing can be tested empirically. What becomes of yours or my sense of awareness, soul, if you will, following death, if you will. We know what happens to the limbs and fibers, to a degree.

Edited June 2, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

I agreed and defined your exception: Everything except one thing can be tested empirically. What becomes of yours and my sense of awareness, soul, if you will, following death, if you will.

Okay, but we do have cognitive science and neuroscience (etc), so you can think about your senses an awareness scientifically.

 

So far, there is no evidence of a soul -- at least in any common understanding of the word. People who beleive we have a soul are unable to define it carefully, let alone test it, and so there is little or no reason to actually beleive in the concept of a soul.

[Strange]

Princeton is many folk, and subtle about their scheme.

 

 

What scheme?

[B. John Jones]

Okay, but we do have cognitive science and neuroscience (etc), so you can think about your senses an awareness scientifically.

 

So far, there is no evidence of a soul -- at least in any common understanding of the word. People who beleive we have a soul are unable to define it carefully, let alone test it, and so there is little or no reason to actually beleive in the concept of a soul.

 

Nonsense. Whatever color or other patterns of motion and imagery we can detect in the brain, hormones, electrolytic whatever, there's a very obvious conclusion. Have you ever chosen something physically? Like to grab a donut, or cup of coffee or glass of water? Once you've chosen, you get up, and get what you want. Right? You choose first, then you move. Your limbs. Your muscles. Your hormones. Etc. Now, choice--is the cause, not the effect of those motions. Right? Otherwise, you wouldn't be aware, or at least you wouldn't have any choice in the matter. Right? Choice, you choose a glass of water, then you move. Mind, first, then--brain. Thought is the cause, imagery is the effect.

Edited June 2, 2016 by B. John Jones

[ajb]

Nonsense. Whatever color or other patterns of motion and imagery we can detect in the brain, hormones, electrolytic whatever, there's a very obvious conclusion. Have you ever chosen something physically? Like to grab a donut, or cup of coffee or glass of water? Once you've chosen, you get up, and get what you want. Right? You choose first, then you move. Your limbs. Your muscless. Your hormones. Etc. Now, choice--is the cause, not the effect of those motions. Right. Otherwise, you wouldn't be aware, or at least you wouldn't have any choice in the matter. Right. Choice, you choose a glass of water, then you move. Mind, first, then--brain. Thought is the cause, imagery is the effect.

I don't understand your point?

 

If it is something to do with individual choices based on aesthetic or moral judgments then science has far less to say.

 

It is possible to approach some questions of how populations or collections of people make judgments, but for individuals this is much harder. Basically, science says little about moral judgments, artistics judgments and how science can be used.

[B. John Jones]

I don't understand your point?

 

If it is something to do with individual choices based on aesthetic or moral judgments then science has far less to say.

 

It is possible to approach some questions of how populations or collections of people make judgments, but for individuals this is much harder. Basically, science says little about moral judgments, artistics judgments and how science can be used.

Please reread more carefully. It's simple stuff, really. Just take 5 minutes and think about it. I've edited out the typos.