Which approach do you prefer: philosophy or science?

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Why is it dumb? Though I liked what you had to say in that post (the rest of it), this part doesn't seem to fit in. Are you saying this thread is dumb, and that I'm dumb for starting it?

Posing it in a dichotomous way is dumb.

Arguing one way over the another is akin to disabling oneself.

Did I read the entire thread? No.

 

[Typh0n]

Posing it in a dichotomous way is dumb.

Arguing one way over the another is akin to disabling oneself.

Did I read the entire thread? No.

You apperantly didn't read my OP either - I'm not positing it in a dichotomous way, I'm simply saying they are two different approaches to thinking.

Does that mean you can be interested in both philosophy and science? Of course. Are they mutually exclusive? No one has said that.

Many have answered the thread thinking I meant it as an either/or thing, probably because they read the thread title and little else.

I do simply find that often people who are very into science think little of philosophy, and vice versa, though thats not a general rule either, more like a trend.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

You apperantly didn't read my OP either - I'm not positing it in a dichotomous way, I'm simply saying they are two different approaches to thinking.

Many have answered the thread thinking I meant it as an either/or thing, probably because they read the thread title and little else.

Does that mean you can be interested in both philosophy and science? Of course. Are they mutually exclusive? No one has said that.

I do simply find that often people who are very into science think little of philosophy, and vice versa, though thats not a general rule either, more like a trend.

Having lived it, my post was more/less addressing this part.

The Tin-Man without a heart comes to mind.

 

[Typh0n]

Having lived it, my post was more/less addressing this part.

The Tin-Man without a heart comes to mind.

Ok, so I'm glad we have experienced the same thing.

The reason I made this thread wasn't about positing the problem as a dichotomy, and have everyone debate it, defending either philosophy or science over the other.

I found the subject interesting, and wanted to hear other people's persepctives on it, because I like listening to what people have to say, especially their line of thinking, how they think etc. Even if someone tells me "I don't see them as mutually exclusive", I see that as a persepctive too, though I'd wish they'd get deeper into the subject.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

 

[Luigi]

Let this be a lesson to you. You should never put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[Thelema]

This question doesn't make much sense to me.

Science is a method created by philosophy.
Actually, the scientific method carries many philosophical assumptions, both epistemological and ontological.

Science is not above questioning, because its philosophical assumptions are debatable.

 

[Typh0n]

This question doesn't make much sense to me.

Science is a method created by philosophy.
Actually, the scientific method carries many philosophical assumptions, both epistemological and ontological.

Science is not above questioning, because its philosophical assumptions are debatable.

Well, you do have people who prefer science over philosophy. Though personally I agree with your reasoning.

I just want to know why people think the way they do, its not judgemental either, its a bit like typology. Trying to understand different natures of people.

 

[Coriolis]

This question doesn't make much sense to me.

Science is a method created by philosophy.
Actually, the scientific method carries many philosophical assumptions, both epistemological and ontological.

Science is not above questioning, because its philosophical assumptions are debatable.

Questioning is an essential part of science. I have heard science called "natural philosophy", which suggests the application of the methods of philosophy to the natural (i.e. physical) world. Yes, they are related.

 

[Thelema]

There are things science can't question. Science can only study the physical world, and human sensory experience, basically.

Morality. Science can't investigate morality, for example, because science only tells us what "is", and not what "should be". You can't prove scientifically that it is wrong to murder somebody, for example.

Moreover, science is a dynamic process. It always changes. Things that were considered scientific facts two centuries ago, are not considered facts anymore. Of course, after we die, many things we see as "scientific facts" will change. Technology will develop, and our scientific knowledge will become obsolete.

I don't trust science to answer all questions, because I don't trust human sensory experience to answer all questions. As Descartes said, when you look at the sky, the sun looks close. It looks so much closer than it is. It took time for humanity to develop technology and discover the real distance between the Earth and the Sun. It took time to discover that bacteria exist. Science is always updating, it never stops.

I prefer philosophy because it doesn't have to rely on external data. Science is Te, philosophy is Ti.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

There are things science can't question. Science can only study the physical world, and human sensory experience, basically.

There are philosophers who would disagree with you.

Morality. Science can't investigate morality, for example, because science only tells us what "is", and not what "should be". You can't prove scientifically that it is wrong to murder somebody, for example.

You can't prove it philosophically either. It all depends on your arbitrary definition of "wrong". And even intuitively, it's not obvious that it is wrong in all cases.

I prefer philosophy because it doesn't have to rely on external data. Science is Te, philosophy is Ti.

You can't be sure that something like "internal" data even exists. And if it does, whether you have access to it. In the end, you seem to prefer philosophy because it doesn't require any relationship to truth. I doubt many philosophers would agree with you.

 

[Paisley]

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, so in general, everyone uses philosophy to study everything, like the sciences of biology and physics or whatever, to Math, Education, even Art, and so on, all have a philosophy or a study of them, as in, you earn a Ph.D in whatever, which is a doctorate of philosophy of whatever. It's the philosophy of science I enjoy the most, as studying metaphysics and ontology, as well as epistemology, seeks to get to the foundational root behind thought, knowledge and existence.

As a Christian I naturally enjoy the philosophy of science in metaphysics called apologetics which defends arguments for God based on all kinds of philosophical answers, like inference to the best explanation, teleological, cosmological, and ontological arguments for the existence of God, and describing truth based on unpacking mans basic need to understand Origin, Meaning, Morality, and a hope that assures a Destiny which I believe is found and satisfied in the person of Jesus Christ who is God and claimed to be Truth itself.

The reason I can understand science, that is, the natural universe, is because its made by an *intelligent source (God) who used understandable means to put things together which we went and classified like the periodic table, or pi in pure math, and the cosmological constant for example, which are understandable scientific discoveries. I also like how everything in the natural universe, as in, on earth, is relational to people, just as God is relational to people. The relational aspect of life always intrigues me, often half the reason I'm even on the forums, lol.

Hopefully that answers some of Typh0n's questions and curiosities about my perspective on philosophy and science.

*edit

 

[Coriolis]

The reason I can understand science, that is, the natural universe, is because its made by an understandable source (God) who used understandable means to put things together which we went and classified like the periodic table, or pi in pure math, and the cosmological constant for example, which are understandable scientific discoveries. I also like how everything in the natural universe, as in, on earth, is relational to people, just as God is relational to people. The relational aspect of life always intrigues me, often half the reason I'm even on the forums, lol.

Do you really think you can understand God?

 

[Forever]

Do you really think you can understand God?

I wanted to like this comment, so +1

Anyhow, in my perspective I think it’s not up to us to understand God but to understand why God has given us our perspective and our own purpose in this part to play in the universe.

 

[Paisley]

Do you really think you can understand God?

....perhaps, "a source that has understanding" or "an intelligent source"....would've been a better choice of words.

As a matter of my beliefs, God is certainly understandable and certainly desires to be understood, in as much as such a relationship is intended from a Heavenly Father to an earthly child. Why go to all that trouble of creating the universe with us in it and originally having a deep relationship with us, but then allowing us to sin and be separated from him, giving us free choice between good and evil, then giving us his law through the prophets, then sending his Son Jesus to die for us so we could be reunited with him, if he didn't love us and want us in the first place? Sounds like a relational God who wanted us to exist with him, if he's going to go to all that effort. Also seems like we're kind of important too, but, best not to get cocky about it.

 

[Coriolis]

....perhaps, "a source that has understanding" or "an intelligent source"....would've been a better choice of words.

As a matter of my beliefs, God is certainly understandable and certainly desires to be understood, in as much as such a relationship is intended from a Heavenly Father to an earthly child. Why go to all that trouble of creating the universe with us in it and originally having a deep relationship with us, but then allowing us to sin and be separated from him, giving us free choice between good and evil, then giving us his law through the prophets, then sending his Son Jesus to die for us so we could be reunited with him, if he didn't love us and want us in the first place? Sounds like a relational God who wanted us to exist with him, if he's going to go to all that effort. Also seems like we're kind of important too, but, best not to get cocky about it.

I think as hard as it is to understand another human being, so much harder would it be to understand God. But then it is obvious that your belief system differs quite a bit from mine, so not surprising that we have different perspectives on this. I do agree that awareness of and interaction with deity is a human priority, if not necessity.

 

[The Cat]

I've always thought of science as an action, while philosophy is considering how to direct that action...

 

[Paisley]

I think as hard as it is to understand another human being, so much harder would it be to understand God. But then it is obvious that your belief system differs quite a bit from mine, so not surprising that we have different perspectives on this. I do agree that awareness of and interaction with deity is a human priority, if not necessity.

It's naturally a different type of relationship with God than with people too, especially with the whole, he created us thing, and that we can physically see people and not God. . In parts of scripture Jesus is referred to as Immanuel, which means God with Us, and throughout all of scripture God expresses himself as a relational God, so that's the concept I use to understand God theologically and to spend time with God experientially.

Is that a concept you're used to, a God of love who seeks relationship with people, not just people seeking God? Or is your god concept more distant and abstract and not really relational? Perhaps a bit of both?

*Also, I edited my previous post to avoid confusion about the teleological argument I was making.

 

[Luigi]

I've always thought of science as an action, while philosophy is considering how to direct that action...

How practical, how fascinating.

 

[Red Memories]

Depends what we're discussing.

If we are discussing the affects of a disease I would much rather have the facts of science than a philosophical debate on the meaning of disease.

If we are discussing the right to self-defense I would rather have a philosophical approach.