Which approach do you prefer: philosophy or science?

[Coriolis]

To slap a label on someone, or a group of someones, is lazy. Better to spell out exactly what you mean, and thereby reduce the likelihood of being misunderstood.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

 

[Sangam]

There is more than one kind of truth. Some truth is entirely scientific. Want to get a rocket to Mars? Philosophy won't be much use. It can, however, help you decide whether that is a worthwhile goal to begin with, given everything else going on in the world.

I agree with you.It's funny when people say that Science is Better than Philosophy.Because they ask different questions and sometimes the questions coincide.

 

[Sangam]

Both Western philosophy and science were began 3,000 years ago in Ancient Greece.

Socrates kicked off Western philosophy with critical thinking, however critical thinking does precipitate cognitive dissonance which is emotionally painful.

And the Ancient Greeks also kicked off Western science by discovering that the Gods were natural forces, so science was called natural philosophy.

Neither the Chinese, nor the Indians, nor Islam, nor tribal peoples, invented philosophy or science. Here, though, I am required to give a trigger warning, as the previous sentence is not politically correct, and may cause offence.

Early Greek and Indian Connections - School of Philosophy Auckland

 

[Sangam]

Next you will be telling me Indians invented hygiene, but we only have to go to India to see it is an alfresco toilet.

Do you have statistics to prove your argument?I found the following interesting stuff.
History of Hygiene Timeline - History Learning Site
Back in time - History of Hygiene - Public Sanitation
Hygiene - Wikipedia
Please look into the History section.It never occurred to me to me to look into issues like Hygiene(although I know how the word come to be).
Thank you for the comment.

 

[Mole]

To call an entire country unhygienic based on a negative and inferiorizing stereotype is plainly ignorant to say the least.

It is only recently we discovered public hygiene and implemented it, and now in prosperous, literate countries we take public hygiene for granted, however in poor countries with a non-literate, spoken culture, public hygiene can't be taken for granted.

And moving from literate, prosperous countries to poor non-literate, spoken culture, we often experience culture shock, not least because of public hygiene.

For instance, as I write, public hygiene had broken down in Yemen, and thousands are dying of cholera, including children.

 

[Beorn]

There is science and there is philosophy.
There is a philosophy of science but there is no science of philosophy.
That should make it pretty clear which discipline is preeminent.

 

[á´…eparted]

To slap a label on someone, or a group of someones, is lazy. Better to spell out exactly what you mean, and thereby reduce the likelihood of being misunderstood.

I agree with this to an extent, which is why I generally don't labeling myself in philosophical terms. For all intents and purposes, nihilism is what I subscribe to, but that label doesn't quite describe where I stand. If I were to say that for myself people would make inaccurate assumptions. Essentially, I like and follow philosophies that are heavily informed by science. That's where both are at their richest and deepest IMO. No label for that as far as I know.

Edit: Actually, rather convienenly a nice little video was uploaded the other that that get's pretty close to my views.

 

[Beorn]

If I haven't made my position clear then here is a picture of Simone Weil punching Richard Dawkins.

That should clear things up.

 

[Mole]

If I haven't made my position clear then here is a picture of Simone Weil punching Richard Dawkins.

That should clear things up.

Simone Weil (pronounced Vey) is a loveable person, while Richard Dawkins is less loveable. On the other hand, Simone Weil starved herself to death in solidarity with those hungry in war torn Europe, and Richard Dawkins gives us the implications of natural selection.

So we might say Simone Weil gives us mystical love, while Richard Dawkins extends the Western Enlightenment of the 18th century.

 

[The Cat]

Both. Because why limit myself?

 

[Coriolis]

So we might say Simone Weil gives us mystical love, while Richard Dawkins extends the Western Enlightenment of the 18th century.

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.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I agree with you.It's funny when people say that Science is Better than Philosophy.Because they ask different questions and sometimes the questions coincide.

Well, science with a few grains of philosophy is much better at creating concrete results than Philosophy with a few grains of Science. Therefore better is subjective in this case but since most people want concrete results science gets an edge in practical matters and it generally has higher real life value.

 

[Mole]

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.

Simone Weil (pronounced Vey) takes love to transcendental levels. It is very easy to be cynical of transcendental love as it is so easy to fake. But Simone Weil puts herself on the line, she puts her thoughts on the line, she puts her feelings on he line, and finally she puts her body on the line.

The only proper response to love is to love in return, and the deepest failure is to fail to love in return.

 

[Luigi]

I almost always prefer the scientific approach, which is why I have never been interested in philosophy, and even now I am only willing to consider philosophy that has any rational thought process behind its foundation. However, this makes me wonder. What is the difference between philosophy and a spiritual belief system?

 

[Mole]

What is fascinating is the philosophy of science, as well as the history of science.

We are meaning creating animals, and since the Western Enlightenment of the 18th century, we have found our meaning through evidence, reason, and history.

Unfortunately Americans discount history in favour of ideology, and Americans enchanted by the New Age movement have discounted evidence and reason in favour of fantasy. And as Goya points out: the sleep of reason brings forth monsters, and we see the monsters on campus today attacking free speech, click on The Unfortunate Fallout of Campus Postmodernism - Scientific American

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Science

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

I almost always prefer the scientific approach, which is why I have never been interested in philosophy, and even now I am only willing to consider philosophy that has any rational thought process behind its foundation. However, this makes me wonder. What is the difference between philosophy and a spiritual belief system?

I agree. The philosophy of math or physics is non-spiritual unless you go off the deep end.

 

[Luigi]

I agree. The philosophy of math or physics is non-spiritual unless you go off the deep end.

When you go off the deep end, you can't be taken seriously.

 

[LovecraftianMonstrosity]

Philosophy and science are both based on logic, but they are meant to answer different types of questions. Philosophy is for answering questions that are metaphysical or purely abstract, beyond what can be measured empirically. Science is for answering questions about the material universe and involves using observation and experimentation to find enough empirical evidence to prove or disprove a hypothesis and then build theories and models based on the accepted hypotheses. Science is not looking for Truth with a capital T like philosophy sometimes is, but is instead looking for what is observably consistent enough that predictions can be made off of it.

I like both approaches but find the questions posed by philosophy to be more interesting.

Convert to empiricism.