Which approach do you prefer: philosophy or science?

[Coriolis]

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

Engineering is action. Science is developing the knowledge and insight to direct that action.

 

[The Cat]

Engineering is action. Science is developing the knowledge and insight to direct that action.

So many more science teacher tears make waay more sense now...;p

In all seriousness, I suppose I've thought of it that was for so long because I need application for context, without that, it's just, dead on a page, I can read it and memorize things, but without something to physically apply it to and there understand, it might as well be greek to me... Though developing is an action word, so maybe it is different in practice than it was in school...

 

[Coriolis]

So many more science teacher tears make waay more sense now...;p

In all seriousness, I suppose I've thought of it that was for so long because I need application for context, without that, it's just, dead on a page, I can read it and memorize things, but without something to physically apply it to and there understand, it might as well be greek to me... Though developing is an action word, so maybe it is different in practice than it was in school...

Remember, the words are not the activity. It sounds like you simply prefer hands-on experimentation to theory or modelling, as do I. All are part of science, which as a collaborative activity attracts people interested in its various aspects.

 

[The Cat]

Remember, the words are not the activity. It sounds like you simply prefer hands-on experimentation to theory or modelling, as do I. All are part of science, which as a collaborative activity attracts people interested in its various aspects.

Yeah, during group projects in school I was always the one to do the actual "wet work" It never failed to impress me how organized and methodical the researchers and modellers were. I always felt like we had a perfect cohesion of perpetual motion. I'm fairly good at research if I have to be, though I prefer going to libraries than relying solely on computers, just because I need to be able to get up and down and I often pace while reading; as to the modelling, I don't have much of a head or patience for it, so I'm always happy to meet someone who does. Thanks for being patient with me, I've come to a broader understanding of the topic at hand. Thanks ^_^

 

[Coriolis]

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?

I don't know if my idea of God is more distant and abstract than yours, but it does seem less . . . personal. I think we humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize God, and to view God too much like us. The idea that God seeks a relationship with us, or seeks anything, or loves, seems to ascribe to him very human actions and motivations. Sure - the Bible says we are made in God's image, so to some degree the whole thing is circular. I just see God as much more general, I suppose. I feel most connected to God through his creation, with people and even myself being a part of all that. God is not distant, but rather part of the fabric of everything. Without God, none of it would exist. God transcends everything in our human, material world and there is something very abstract about it, but part of it is also very real and tangible. So, my relationship with god doesn't look much like any relationship I have with people. You note yourself it will be different. Not sure if this answers your queestion. If not, feel free to ask more.

 

[Typh0n]

There are philosophers who would disagree with you.

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.

You can't philosphically prove anything - but you can at least discuss it in a way that addresses the question of whether murder is wrong, how can science address such a question?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

You can't philosphically prove anything - but you can at least discuss it in a way that addresses the question of whether murder is wrong, how can science address such a question?

There is no agreement on this matter, but there are many people who think that such a question can be addressed by science. Believe it or not, a lot of them are actually philosophers (and I think that the very idea may have originated with Bentham).

This is an active area of research, also experimental - not just theoretical musings:

From the intro to Science of Morality | World Science Festival

Science is investigating the biological roots of empathy, altruism and cooperation to discover whether we possess an innate moral grammar, much like language, or whether morality arises from the interactions among biological and social systems.

Some examples:

Joshua Greene, a cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher, runs a lab at Harvard that concentrates on the mechanics of moral thinking. For example, he has a theory that our "common sense" is an artefact of our "palaeolithic moral thinking" and is not well suited to modern problems and complex social environment. One example of this is the famous trolley thought experiment, that puts a new spin on the "wrongness" of killing someone.

Sam Harris, again a philosopher and neuroscientist, wrote a book, "The Moral Landscape", with a subtitle "How Science Can Determine Human Values", arguing that morality deals with human (and not only human) well-being - and this can be actually measured, at least in principle (though admittedly, the concept is a bit vague).

There are many others: Dennett, Haidt, Pinker, Singer, Baumeister.


Think about it - it may actually be good for you :

Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior - Scientific American

Their new study, published in the journal PLOSOne, argues that the association between science and morality is so ingrained that merely thinking about it can trigger more moral behavior.

 

[á´…eparted]

I don't know if my idea of God is more distant and abstract than yours, but it does seem less . . . personal. I think we humans have a tendency to anthropomorphize God, and to view God too much like us. The idea that God seeks a relationship with us, or seeks anything, or loves, seems to ascribe to him very human actions and motivations. Sure - the Bible says we are made in God's image, so to some degree the whole thing is circular. I just see God as much more general, I suppose. I feel most connected to God through his creation, with people and even myself being a part of all that. God is not distant, but rather part of the fabric of everything. Without God, none of it would exist. God transcends everything in our human, material world and there is something very abstract about it, but part of it is also very real and tangible. So, my relationship with god doesn't look much like any relationship I have with people. You note yourself it will be different. Not sure if this answers your queestion. If not, feel free to ask more.

This is interesting. I don't think I have heard you write this out in much detail. Is it fair to guess that your intimate knowledge of physics informs these thing? Sort of like seeing the standard model as god? I don't know nearly as much as physics as you, but I know enough to conceptually keep up with QM to use these sorts of thing to come to ideas on what "it" is.

I wonder if we think of the same thing, but just with a different label? Because if I were to label a god, I would probably do it the same way you describe.

 

[hav]

Being a person who is more laid towards the humanities, I'd say philosophy, or even better: theology. Science gives us a lot of answers, and I highly value it in most cases. But it alone can easily turn superficial for many, lacking in both meaning and substance.

 

[Typh0n]

There is no agreement on this matter, but there are many people who think that such a question can be addressed by science. Believe it or not, a lot of them are actually philosophers (and I think that the very idea may have originated with Bentham).

This is an active area of research, also experimental - not just theoretical musings:

From the intro to Science of Morality | World Science Festival



Some examples:

Joshua Greene, a cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher, runs a lab at Harvard that concentrates on the mechanics of moral thinking. For example, he has a theory that our "common sense" is an artefact of our "palaeolithic moral thinking" and is not well suited to modern problems and complex social environment. One example of this is the famous trolley thought experiment, that puts a new spin on the "wrongness" of killing someone.

Sam Harris, again a philosopher and neuroscientist, wrote a book, "The Moral Landscape", with a subtitle "How Science Can Determine Human Values", arguing that morality deals with human (and not only human) well-being - and this can be actually measured, at least in principle (though admittedly, the concept is a bit vague).

There are many others: Dennett, Haidt, Pinker, Singer, Baumeister.


Think about it - it may actually be good for you :

Just Thinking about Science Triggers Moral Behavior - Scientific American

What they are doing is basically trying to understand the roots of morality - the idea that morality is inherent in our biology is not a new idea and dates back to Nietzsche and probably further back (though Nietzsche's understanding of science was a bit vague and mystical). In and of itself it is a philosophical judgement. Sure, you can study how morality and biology are linked, this isn't the same thing as making moral judgements and justifying those judgements. You could tell me that there is no distinction between morality and biology but this is itself a philosphical assumtion. I could just as easily say that just because morality is linked, possibly even caused by, biology, does not mean the act of making moral or ethical judgements is science.

Science is void of value judgements. Once you start pondering questions like "is murder wrong?" you delve into the realm of values, and you cannot remain (solely) scientific. It doesn't matter if Sam Harris thinks that morality should be based on what makes us feel good - that it is still his value judgement, it is not a scientific judgement despite being informed by science.

 

[Agent Washington]

all forms of knowledge is inherently ethical.

 

[Typh0n]

all forms of knowledge is inherently ethical.

Sure.

But what consitutes "knowledge"? If you replaced "knowledge" with "information" would it still hold the same ethical value?

You know, philosophical questions, which are raised by philosophical statements.

Also, not to nitpick, but it should read either "all forms of knowledge are inherently ethical" or "all knowledge is inherently ethical".

 

[Agent Washington]

Sure.

But what consitutes "knowledge"? If you replaced "knowledge" with "information" would it still hold the same ethical value?

You know, philosophical questions, which are raised by philosophical statements.

Also, not to nitpick, but it should read either "all forms of knowledge are inherently ethical" or "all knowledge is inherently ethical".

Yeah i realised after i typed it but i'm actually running a fever and have been for the past week, on and off, so...

from a historical perspective, knowlege production is bound with institutions, the production of knowlege takes time, energy effort personnel (increasingly with the ...ghmmm. ... .... especially with the modern laboratory, unlike in the middle ages), so the production of knowlege renders nothing strictly 'information', but rather subject to biases, institutional ineffieinciy , uhhhh what else, lots of other things. the creation of artefacts etc are also not strictly technological in that sense, because the creation of a certain artefact requries a certain objective in mind, and all of these are subject to ethical values etc.

it's also no coincidence that it is around the period of 1850s that the museum becomes a public phenomena, after the great exhibition in london. all of these phenomenons are linked to human activity; consumption of knowledge is thus linked to production of knowleged

ideally, 'information' could be separated, but in reality it isn't, because everything is a human endeavour and humans cannot fully be objective by any standards
also science is a shifting paradigm, as new information becomes available, that's the nature of knowledge.

an example would be the implication of greenhouse gases and their effects on the global climate. there's a reason industrialists want it to not be true. because there's a moral component to it and there's a social obligation to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. i mean. sure. their 'studies' are probably 'information'. but it's being produced for a reason, to subvert moral and ethical obligations that would arise if the opposite was true. and people acting a certain way is definitely tied to the info they get (e.g. people associating fatness with overeating and laziness, when in fact it's easier to help obesity by tackling other problems, not by morally judging them, but the widely disseminated info is eating + not moving = fat) or choose to take in (sometimes because of cognitive dissonance. case example: tellen and sfp)

like if you examine the late 19-early 20th century discussion abt science, you will find lots of ethical implications resulting from a certain theory.

people don't just think in terms of one field, there could be a preference, sure, but all sorts of knowledge (and yes, information) always has a practical aspect to it. anything with practical aspects will require a mode of conduct, whether it is acceptable etc.

tl;dr ppl are complicated and information is never strictly information, but forms a part of human culture, and intake/output of information is subject to human biases for practical and moral reasons.

 

[entropie]

I always approach sexual, the rest is for the mind !

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

What they are doing is basically trying to understand the roots of morality - the idea that morality is inherent in our biology is not a new idea and dates back to Nietzsche and probably further back (though Nietzsche's understanding of science was a bit vague and mystical). In and of itself it is a philosophical judgement. Sure, you can study how morality and biology are linked, this isn't the same thing as making moral judgements and justifying those judgements. You could tell me that there is no distinction between morality and biology but this is itself a philosphical assumtion. I could just as easily say that just because morality is linked, possibly even caused by, biology, does not mean the act of making moral or ethical judgements is science.

Science is void of value judgements. Once you start pondering questions like "is murder wrong?" you delve into the realm of values, and you cannot remain (solely) scientific. It doesn't matter if Sam Harris thinks that morality should be based on what makes us feel good - that it is still his value judgement, it is not a scientific judgement despite being informed by science.

If the idea that morality is inherent in our biology (and culture) is objectively true and it can be demonstrated, than it is not a philosophical judgement but a scientific question. I don't know whether it is true or can be demonstrated, but I think it is quite likely.

I am also not saying that making moral judgements is science, but it is not philosophy either. Monkeys make moral judgements. Have you heard about any simian philosophers?

Science is not void of values. At the minimum, it values truth. Plus, what [MENTION=31909]agentwashington[/MENTION] said.

Now, you are saying that philosophy can answer why murder is wrong. So why hasn't it?

When you go deep enough, moral judgements are likely based on arbitrarily selected first principles. Philosophy can help you build a coherent system around these principles, but when it comes to selecting them, philosophy is as impotent as science. If there is any universal system of morality, independent from biology and culture, philosophy has failed to discover it, or at least failed to demonstrate it convincingly. After several thousand years of trying, chances are that it is an exercise in futility.

 

[Coriolis]

Being a person who is more laid towards the humanities, I'd say philosophy, or even better: theology. Science gives us a lot of answers, and I highly value it in most cases. But it alone can easily turn superficial for many, lacking in both meaning and substance.

The problem isn't that science is superficial, meaningless or insubstantial, but rather simply that it cannot answer all the questions life presents. It addresses the physical world, explaining how things work and often how they came to be that way. It cannot address questions of morality, or the meaning of life and our place in the universe. Those are more properly addressed by philosophy or spirituality. As always, we need to use the right tool for the job.

 

[Typh0n]

If the idea that morality is inherent in our biology (and culture) is objectively true and it can be demonstrated, than it is not a philosophical judgement but a scientific question. I don't know whether it is true or can be demonstrated, but I think it is quite likely.

I am also not saying that making moral judgements is science, but it is not philosophy either. Monkeys make moral judgements. Have you heard about any simian philosophers?

To the question of morals I prefer ethical philosophy, as morals are a series of arbitrary judgements which require a knee-jerk reaction. Think of the ten commandments.There is no reflection there, philosophical or even theological. Believers simply have to obey. Ethics is the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of right and wrong and tries to ponder those questions. Perhaps even moe important than ethics is meta-ethics: on what philosophical axioms are ethical judgements founded?

Science is not void of values. At the minimum, it values truth. Plus, what [MENTION=31909]agentwashington[/MENTION] said.

I said value judgements. Not values. Sure, scientists want to get the right answer and not be mislead, and these could be considered values, but science addresses neither ethcis nor meta-ethics, though it does apply them.

Now, you are saying that philosophy can answer why murder is wrong. So why hasn't it?

No, I am saying it can address the question. It can't "answer" it in a consensus fashion: that isn't how philosophy works.

When you go deep enough, moral judgements are likely based on arbitrarily selected first principles. Philosophy can help you build a coherent system around these principles, but when it comes to selecting them, philosophy is as impotent as science. If there is any universal system of morality, independent from biology and culture, philosophy has failed to discover it, or at least failed to demonstrate it convincingly. After several thousand years of trying, chances are that it is an exercise in futility.

They are just two different things, because the object of their study is different.

I don't know that most philosophers claim there is a universal system of morality at all. Even Plato, Kant, and Ayn Rand who were moral objectivists didn't come up with a system of rules for everything, which I am assuming is what you mean by a "universal system of morality". The only exception is maybe Plato in his Laws, which isn't considered his best work.

 

[Typh0n]

Yeah i realised after i typed it but i'm actually running a fever and have been for the past week, on and off, so...

from a historical perspective, knowlege production is bound with institutions, the production of knowlege takes time, energy effort personnel (increasingly with the ...ghmmm. ... .... especially with the modern laboratory, unlike in the middle ages), so the production of knowlege renders nothing strictly 'information', but rather subject to biases, institutional ineffieinciy , uhhhh what else, lots of other things. the creation of artefacts etc are also not strictly technological in that sense, because the creation of a certain artefact requries a certain objective in mind, and all of these are subject to ethical values etc.

it's also no coincidence that it is around the period of 1850s that the museum becomes a public phenomena, after the great exhibition in london. all of these phenomenons are linked to human activity; consumption of knowledge is thus linked to production of knowleged

ideally, 'information' could be separated, but in reality it isn't, because everything is a human endeavour and humans cannot fully be objective by any standards
also science is a shifting paradigm, as new information becomes available, that's the nature of knowledge.

an example would be the implication of greenhouse gases and their effects on the global climate. there's a reason industrialists want it to not be true. because there's a moral component to it and there's a social obligation to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases. i mean. sure. their 'studies' are probably 'information'. but it's being produced for a reason, to subvert moral and ethical obligations that would arise if the opposite was true. and people acting a certain way is definitely tied to the info they get (e.g. people associating fatness with overeating and laziness, when in fact it's easier to help obesity by tackling other problems, not by morally judging them, but the widely disseminated info is eating + not moving = fat) or choose to take in (sometimes because of cognitive dissonance. case example: tellen and sfp)

like if you examine the late 19-early 20th century discussion abt science, you will find lots of ethical implications resulting from a certain theory.

people don't just think in terms of one field, there could be a preference, sure, but all sorts of knowledge (and yes, information) always has a practical aspect to it. anything with practical aspects will require a mode of conduct, whether it is acceptable etc.

tl;dr ppl are complicated and information is never strictly information, but forms a part of human culture, and intake/output of information is subject to human biases for practical and moral reasons.

I agree that human biases are always there, so nothing is ever void of value, and I think that's kind of what Nietzsche was saying about philosophy, theology religion, etc being forms of "moraline" and that science is an extenstion of that.

Still, what I meant was that science doesn't study those values or where they come from, hence it can't address them head-on. Science and philosophy, like I said to Gunboat, are two different things because the object of their study is different. Still all preference for an intellectual judgement has emotional bias, including preference for the idea that we are but puppets to our biology.

 

[Agent Washington]

I agree that human biases are always there, so nothing is ever void of value, and I think that's kind of what Nietzsche was saying about philosophy, theology religion, etc being forms of "moraline" and that science is an extenstion of that.

Still, what I meant was that science doesn't study those values or where they come from, hence it can't address them head-on. Science and philosophy, like I said to Gunboat, are two different things because the object of their study is different. Still all preference for an intellectual judgement has emotional bias, including preference for the idea that we are but puppets to our biology.

Hmmm at this point it feels like splitting nails to me. If we already know it's inherently linked, why look at them as if they are separate phenomena?

 

[Typh0n]

Hmmm at this point it feels like splitting nails to me. If we already know it's inherently linked, why look at them as if they are separate phenomena?

I don't know.

The eraliest philosophers were also scientists and vice versa, so I'm not sure where they got lost. Perhaps it has to do with the fact science became more and more complex, with more and more fields of study.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that all science has a poltical or ideological motivation like the example of industrialists denying climate change - I imagine most of science is just about understanding the physical world without much bias there. If you want to know what the sun is composed of or what the chemical structure of sodium chloride is, this isn't a matter of preference but of understanding objective laws. Yes, research is funded by vested interests, which can be said to be biased in alot of cases (though not necessarily towards the research they fund), but most scientists have enough ethical sense not to lie about what their research concludes.

I think philosophy is much easier to be biased about since it doesn't deal with objective realities directly. In the absence verifiablity, you risk falling into the trap of your own imagination. Nothing wrong with that, in itself, so long as you don't lose focus on reality either. The problem is that philosophers are alot more likely to be biased - though not all or even most of them have ill intents, it's just that they work further from the hard data. Same can be said of other humanities such as psychology, economics, political science and so forth, they are the soft sciences, that is, not subject to experimentation the way biology, chemsitry, physics etc are.

I didn't expect this thread to take this turn btw - I am making this up as I go along, lol.

tl:dr; "hard" sciences are more likely to be free from emotional bias due to working with strict experimental data than the "soft" sciences such as philosophy. It isn't impossible however, for someone who wants to deny or believe in some natural phenomenon to nitpick and choose scientific evidence that backs up what they say (at least where science isn't completely settled).