• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Which approach do you prefer: philosophy or science?

Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
625
When you go off the deep end, you can't be taken seriously.

Yeah usually it involves a misunderstanding that can be rectified. It's a stroke of inspiration. I'll give an example. Pilot wave theory has experimental evidence but it can be used to justify some ideas in physics that are... unlikely to be correct
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
We might also say that Simone Weil was a perfect examples of Darwin's Law. I had to read some of her writings in college and was not impressed.

I must admit I have never heard of Darwin's Law. I have heard of The Origin of Species, which is a description rather than a law. And I have heard of The Double Helix and the discovery of DNA, which confirms The Origin of Species, and shows how Natural Selection works.

And I must admit Darwin's Law sounds a bit like Social Darwinism, which was used by the Robber Barons of the USA in the 19th century to justify their rapacious economics.

But the world changes and just today a member of NATO, Turkey, has banned natural selection from being taught in Turkish schools. And this is in line with the teaching of Islam throughout the world.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I must admit I have never heard of Darwin's Law. I have heard of The Origin of Species, which is a description rather than a law. And I have heard of The Double Helix and the discovery of DNA, which confirms The Origin of Species, and shows how Natural Selection works.

And I must admit Darwin's Law sounds a bit like Social Darwinism, which was used by the Robber Barons of the USA in the 19th century to justify their rapacious economics.

But the world changes and just today a member of NATO, Turkey, has banned natural selection from being taught in Turkish schools. And this is in line with the teaching of Islam throughout the world.
It is in line with fundamentalist Christian doctrine as well. One of my college professors used to serve as an expert witness in those court cases involving teaching of evolution vs. creationism in schools.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
625
Anyone reading this thread should understand the positive philosophy of the 20s then read Gödel to understand the roots of modern math. This however must be supplemented with an understanding of the wave function, entanglement, and the probabilistic view inherent to uncertainty.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
It is in line with fundamentalist Christian doctrine as well. One of my college professors used to serve as an expert witness in those court cases involving teaching of evolution vs. creationism in schools.

The difference is fundamental Christianity is a very small part of Christianity, in fact all major sects of Christianity accept Natural Selection as a scientific fact. But Islam as a whole rejects Natural Selection as against the teaching of the Koran.

This is the argument from moral equivalence, first used in the cold war to justify the crimes of the Soviet Union, and today the argument from moral equivalence is used to justify the crimes and discrimination of Islam.

This is not surprising as the Soviet Union was governed by a totalitarian ideology called International Communism, just as Islam is governed by a totalitarian ideology called Wahhabi Islam.

To understand the Soviet Union it is necessary to read Das Capital by Karl Marx, and to understand Wahhabi Islam it is necessary to read Milestones by Sayyid Qutb.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The difference is fundamental Christianity is a very small part of Christianity, in fact all major sects of Christianity accept Natural Selection as a scientific fact. But Islam as a whole rejects Natural Selection as against the teaching of the Koran.
I doubt both assumptions here. Given the different cultural and political environments in the US vs. most primarily Muslim nations, the fact that creationism retains such traction here is sadder and more remarkable to me than the fact that the Muslim nations might reject evolution.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I doubt both assumptions here. Given the different cultural and political environments in the US vs. most primarily Muslim nations, the fact that creationism retains such traction here is sadder and more remarkable to me than the fact that the Muslim nations might reject evolution.

In the USA Creationism is no more than a cult, in fact all of biology in the USA is based on Natural Selection. Whereas in Islamic dictatorships like Turkey, biology is not even taught.

However those who keep pushing the moral equivalence of the USA and Islam, hate the USA and use Islam as a stalking horse.
 

StrawberryBoots

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
407
I think that philosophy and science are two very different approaches to understanding. I also find that science people often dislike (or are at least fairly disinterested in) philosophy, and that philosophy people also are also more skeptical of science as an absolute. Science people tend to view science as more of an absolute, where philosophy people view science as a branch of philosophy.
...
Thoughts? :D Which do you prefer philosophy or science and most importantly, why?

As a Christian, I don't think taking a Biblical approach undermines science, rather, I think the Bible helps illuminate science.

I accept competing models.
 

Forever_Jung

Active member
Joined
May 23, 2009
Messages
2,644
MBTI Type
ESFJ
This is such a tricky question, because science overlaps with a lot of topics. But as I see the distinction, I would say I have more of a philosophical/psychological/spiritual frame of mind. I get a little anxious about science pinning down reality sometimes :newwink:

My brother was the sort of kid who liked taking apart my parent's old radios and putting them back together. He always wanted to know how things worked.

If I ever learned something mechanical, I would undoubtedly try to connect that lesson to some grandiose philosophical fancy. Like if you taught me how a compass worked, I would immediately think: perhaps there is something inside of us, that magnetically guides us towards our dreams, blah, blah, blah (maybe not quite that flowery, but it's just an example).

I have an unfortunate aversion to simply seeing material reality for what it is, which is probably why I think of professions like engineering as almost vulgar/rude (while simultaneously recognizing that engineers are much more intelligent and useful than I am). But I am endlessly fascinated with topics like animal intelligence, how other living things experience reality, how trees communicate with each other, etc.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
As a Christian, I don't think taking a Biblical approach undermines science, rather, I think the Bible helps illuminate science.

I accept competing models.
Creationism or "Intelligent Design" cannot compete as a scientific model. It simply isn't one. Religion and science are not incompatible. They look at two different sides of the coin of life. They answer different kinds of questions, in different ways. It is generally when people try to use either approach to answer the questions properly addressed by the other that conflict arises.
 

Obfuscate

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 20, 2016
Messages
1,907
MBTI Type
iNtP
Enneagram
954
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
They look at two different sides of the coin of life. They answer different kinds of questions, in different ways. It is generally when people try to use either approach to answer the questions properly addressed by the other that conflict arises.

Non-overlapping magisteria, *nods*...
 

StrawberryBoots

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
407
Creationism or "Intelligent Design" cannot compete as a scientific model. It simply isn't one. Religion and science are not incompatible. They look at two different sides of the coin of life. They answer different kinds of questions, in different ways. It is generally when people try to use either approach to answer the questions properly addressed by the other that conflict arises.

When I say "competing models," I'm talking about a faith-based or Biblical model versus a scientific model [the thread topic].

Although, I don't see any reason why a creationist couldn't make scientific predictions within the Biblical Creationist framework, do a scientific investigation, and find evidence that confirms their predictions.

As I said earlier, I see where one might illuminate the other.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When I say "competing models," I'm talking about a faith-based or Biblical model versus a scientific model [the thread topic].

Although, I don't see any reason why a creationist couldn't make scientific predictions within the Biblical Creationist framework, do a scientific investigation, and find evidence that confirms their predictions.

As I said earlier, I see where one might illuminate the other.
I have never heard of biblical explanations referred to as models. The term "model" usually implies an abstract concept that will be validated through empirical testing. The nature of biblical truth places it beyond or outside such empirical methods. It would be foolish for a creationist to make scientific predictions within a creationist framework as it is not a scientific model. On the other hand, I know plenty of scientists who accept scientific models of creation, while attributing the driving force behind all of it to God. Science thus explains how the universe works, while religion explains larger questions of purpose which science cannot address.
 

StrawberryBoots

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
407
I have never heard of biblical explanations referred to as models. The term "model" usually implies an abstract concept that will be validated through empirical testing. The nature of biblical truth places it beyond or outside such empirical methods. It would be foolish for a creationist to make scientific predictions within a creationist framework as it is not a scientific model. On the other hand, I know plenty of scientists who accept scientific models of creation, while attributing the driving force behind all of it to God. Science thus explains how the universe works, while religion explains larger questions of purpose which science cannot address.
No, the term "model" does not universally or usually imply an abstract concept that will be validated through empirical testing. I'm a software engineer, not a scientist. In software engineering a model is simply a schematic description or representation of something. I don't have time to reply to your entire post right now. I'll have to come back.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
No, the term "model" does not universally or usually imply an abstract concept that will be validated through empirical testing. I'm a software engineer, not a scientist. In software engineering a model is simply a schematic description or representation of something. I don't have time to reply to your entire post right now. I'll have to come back.

I suppose it's an issue of language then. Regardless, in the world of science model almost always does refer to things as Coriolis explained. I'm a organic chemist and we use models all the time. An illustrative example in my field is the Si-Re model for Sharpless epoxidation of allylic alcohols. The purpose of the model is to explain and predict the outcome of the reaction before you actually do it. However, the model does not explain exactly what happens. What actually happens is far more complex. However, we are able to reduce the mechanism to a simple model as it has proven to be highly predictable and reliable. It's not accurate in a literal sense, but it is scientifically accurate and a useful model. Further, the model itself can be explained in accurate scientific terms. It came from sound science. It had to in order to be developed.

This sort of process wouldn't work for religion or spiritual topics. The reason is is the base upon which it sits is faith-based and has no scientific or emperical basis to it. It becomes circular logic the second it is applied to the real world. In order to make scientific predictions, you have to start at a scientific root. There is none in religion or spirituality, so it can not be used that way.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It depends on the question. I find it important to use the correct reasoning tool(s) for the right question. I find science generally helps to establish facts and philosophy explores reasoned speculation, although there is overlap. There is of course speculative scientific theory which can be a type of philosophy.
 
Top