Which approach do you prefer: philosophy or science?

[Typh0n]

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.

There's more to it than that. Science and philosophy are two different approaches to reasoning. When I was a kid, I was very much into science. In my late teens I became interested in philosophy, I went through a Nietzsche phase at 19-20, and read books about the history of philosophy, passages from the books of famous thinkers. I think philosophy really, really, made me question the foundations of science and the way science works. I don't reject science, and I do feel it is fine for humans to study the natural world around us, but I also felt like philosophy showed me such an approach is limited. It's not absolute. For example, Kant's ideas about how we can only know the phenomena around us, and not "the thing in itself" struck a chord - how do we know that what we experience through our senses is the whole picture? Insects see things in different colours than we do, dogs see only in black and white, how do we know then that we perceive the world correctly or in a complete fashion? Science is based on observations through the senses, after all. So if we aeren't sure our perception is perfect (it isn't) as humans, what makes us think our interpretation of the stuff we perceive through our senses is infalliable? That was my line of thinking at the time. As a kid, on the other hand, I was curious about the world around me, and just read about it in books. I learned facts. But what I later rejeceted was an understanding of the world based solely on a series of facts, the walking encycopedia isn't prone to critical thinking, lol.

I also read tha Carl Sagan quote about how science is more a method of knowledge than a body of facts (or something like that), and while that may be, many science people seem to dislike philosophy nonetheless.

Also, I know that guys like Isaac Newton, Aristotle, Descartes, etc were into both philosophy and science, but they lived at a time when science was so much less developped than today. It's not comparable.

Thoughts? Which do you prefer philosophy or science and most importantly, why?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

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.

There's more to it than that. Science and philosophy are two different approaches to reasoning. When I was a kid, I was very much into science. In my late teens I became interested in philosophy, I went through a Nietzsche phase at 19-20, and read books about the history of philosophy, passages from the books of famous thinkers. I think philosophy really, really, made me question the foundations of science and the way science works. I don't reject science, and I do feel it is fine for humans to study the natural world around us, but I also felt like philosophy showed me such an approach is limited. It's not absolute. For example, Kant's ideas about how we can only know the phenomena around us, and not "the thing in itself" struck a chord - how do we know that what we experience through our senses is the whole picture? Insects see things in different colours than we do, dogs see only in black and white, how do we know then that we perceive the world correctly or in a complete fashion? Science is based on observations through the senses, after all. So if we aeren't sure our perception is perfect (it isn't) as humans, what makes us think our interpretation of the stuff we perceive through our senses is infalliable? That was my line of thinking at the time. As a kid, on the other hand, I was curious about the world around me, and just read about it in books. I learned facts. But what I later rejeceted was an understanding of the world based solely on a series of facts, the walking encycopedia isn't prone to critical thinking, lol.

I also read tha Carl Sagan quote about how science is more a method of knowledge than a body of facts (or something like that), and while that may be, many science people seem to dislike philosophy nonetheless.

Also, I know that guys like Isaac Newton, Aristotle, Descartes, etc were into both philosophy and science, but they lived at a time when science was so much less developped than today. It's not comparable.

Thoughts?

I went through a similar process, starting out really into science, history, and to a lesser extent math as a younger child, then getting into philosophy as a teen. As a kid I experienced a lot of existential depression and questioned everything, this tendency becoming even more pronounced in my teen years, as I began questioning my perceptions and others' perceptions of supposed fact and reality, and I suppose to some extent that has influenced my adult worldview.

I think philosophy and science are equally important for the health of civilization, and to answer your question, I think I tend to prefer philosophy slightly, while still appreciating the scientific method, even if I realize it can be flawed and is limited by our own sensory limitations. I think either can fill in the gaps for the other, so it's dangerous to ignore either completely.

 

[Bush]

I'm basically agnostic, and I take a pragmatic approach. Mostly scientific, but with hooks into the philosophical.

My belief is essentially that really real reality can never be completely understood -- that we improve our understanding but can only ever approximate a complete understanding. There's some underlying layer, or overarching structure, that's going to be beyond our grasp. Our brains and senses will never have infinite capability. I believe that understanding is good, because understanding gives guidance -- and maybe even purpose.

Here, have some epistemology. Natural philosophy, once upon a time, was basically the best method that we had to understand even the stuff we could observe -- let alone the stuff we couldn't. We've improved our understanding of the natural world, or at least looked at it from a viable perspective, via the development of the scientific method.

Basically, I believe that the scientific approach is the best approach that we have, on the whole, and so we may as well roll with it.

There's cause-and-effect. There are natural principles that seem to be true/universal enough for our purposes. There's stuff that we call evidence. We can derive a way to tackle life itself through all of that: evidence-based living.
_

This does not mean that social sciences or philosophy are bunk. It does not mean that things are only true if we can measure them. Far from it; it's flat-out stupid to disregard or deny the aspects of reality that we only have a tenuous grasp on. Because we'll probably improve our understanding overall if we embrace them.

So at the same time, we should never lose sight of the "why." We should investigate that space, think about it, let it guide different approaches.

I'm a fan of shifting perspective to whatever helps us out, while still anchoring ourselves to reality. From a very high level, maybe our thoughts and actions are deterministic. But at the same time maybe we should spend more time "zoomed in," at an actionable level where we have free will -- because we'd have a good chance to get stuck in existential crises otherwise, to never hold anyone accountable for their actions, and so on.

But hell, there are even higher-level questions. Should we even bother to unstick ourselves? Is a better understanding worth it? What do we mean by "works"? Or "best"? Is morality absolute or relative? Well, there's also the philosophy of science, which is basically an investigation into why we do science in the first place and how we should go about it.

 

[iwakar]

Thoughts? Which do you prefer philosophy or science and most importantly, why?

Science is the matter. Philosophy is the approach. They are concomitant and equally interesting to me.

 

[Lark]

I dont think its a dichotomy, to be honest science is a methodology for the most part, properly understood scientific reductivism taken to its extremes is void of any real meaning.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I don't think I should have to choose. The scientific method obviously cannot explain or justify itself, so at some level science always has to rest on philosophical grounds.

These days, and around the stuff I engage in, I don't feel like I have to defend science a whole lot. It's become very popular with those who understand it and those who don't. I myself might be (I think incorrectly) perceived as some fan of "scientism" because I take a strictly physical interpretation of the universe, am and atheist, a utilitarian (which for some weird reason is thrown in with that stuff even though it's not intrinsically related), and am openly unimpressed with views to the contrary. So I guess it's more important that I defend philosophy here.

The value of science is very pragmatic. It's a method that has worked better than anything else for the purpose of verifying what really exists. If someone can tell me a better idea, I'm all ears. But that doesn't actually remove philosophy of a purpose. After all, can I scientifically investigate my own claim above, that science has worked better? What exactly do I mean by that?

Roughly, I think there are three elements of philosophy that science has not and will probably never subvert.

First of all, logic is philosophy. People forget that. If you remember that logic is philosophy, it makes the anti-philosophical argument really tough.

Secondly, there's ethics. Science can really help as at doing descriptive ethics. We can get better at recording what people generally think, we can even learn what's going on in the brain. It can help us do prescriptive ethics at a higher level, when we're analyzing cause and effect and how to bring about a desired result. But I do not think science can ever tell us what the desirable result fundamentally is. It's not an objective concept. It's subjective one. Mind you, a subjective concept that probably most humans vaguely share, but it's still subjective. When you try to delineate what is essentially good, you will find it is an infinitely regressive process. At some point you have to just stop and say it's good because it seems good in my brain. Scientifically, we might even find exactly where, when, and how the perception of goodness is produced in the brain, but we will never be able to scientifically deconstruct the experience of goodness.

Lastly, there's epistemology. Science has taken over for this one more than it has the above two, but can't completely take it over. Epistemology can go meta in a way science can't, which includes our ability to interrogate the concept of science itself.

And I suppose this comes around to why the two really just make such a weird comparison anyway. It's kind of apples to oranges. They do complimentary things that can and should be applied at the same time. And even if you never used philosophy to once determine a practical truth in your life, attempting to think philosophically is like working out your brain. I've come across some people that possessed what I'd call a-philosophical personalities, and I don't think highly of them. Some of them were even intelligent in certain senses, and involved in STEM fields, and yet somehow I still never got the sense that there were gears spinning in those peoples' heads.

Spin those gears, do some philosophy.

----

As an aside.

Isn't it weird how this dichotomy keeps coming up but never has math in it? Math is not science, science is not math. Though math is rooted in deductive logic, I've never heard it referred to as a philosophy, either. So every time someone has asked a question like "is science the answer to everything?", I first think of math, rather than philosophy, in giving that question a negative.

 

[Qlip]

Bill Nye on philosophy: the science guy says he has changed his mind — Quartz

...Nye is now convinced philosophy and science overlap, with both fields in pursuit of the justified true belief. “It’s an intimate connection,” he said. “What used to be called a ‘natural philosopher’ is now called a scientist.”...

 

[á´…eparted]

Science by a long shot. Philosophy usually annoys the crap out of me, and the vast majority of it isn't interesting to me either.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Science by a long shot. Philosophy usually annoys the crap out of me, and the vast majority of it isn't interesting to me either.

Something like this. Philosophy can be good to keep things in perspective but too much philosophy is likely to be counter productive and force you to run in circles if you don't take in a new data. (and science is the most likely to provide something that is trully new). Also I have doubts that people who never studied hard science at college trully understand what science actually is. (becuase what media and even highschool classes show is quite simplistic and distorted picture.) Until you start mixing chemicals, making new devices, doing field research and solving problems by yourself you don't trully understand what hard science really is.

 

[gromit]

I have my philosophy for life. My work and the treatments I do are informed by scientific evidence as well as my personal philosophy (what my role is as a healthcare practitioner). I suppose that role is informed by science as well.

 

[á´…eparted]

Something like this. Philosophy can be good to keep things in perspective but too much philosophy is likely to be counter productive and force you to run in circles if you don't take in a new data. (and science is the most likely to provide something that is trully new). Also I have doubts that people who never studied hard science at college trully understand what science actually is. (becuase what media and even highschool classes show is quite simplistic and distorted picture.) Until you start mixing chemicals, making new devices, doing field research and solving problems by yourself you don't trully understand what hard science really is.

The problem isn't that people don't understand science. The problem is people attempt to apply science beyond what their ability is.

Most people know where their ability lies and do not try to push past it. They properly defer to experts, or learn up to the line and don't extrapolate past there. Some don't know though. This typically arises in the form of people finding papers/studies, and trying to draw conclusions from them; unless your an expert in the field, rigorously trained as a scientist, or having someone to help you, you can't do it. I'm not saying this to sound haughty. The fact of the matter is science is really really difficult, and unless you have training you can't pull it off past your ability. It's the equivalent of a 40 year old desk worker attempting to run a marathon based on the fact that they jog for a mile 3 times a week. Sure, you know how a marathon works in principle, but actually doing it is another matter and impossible. It's a HUUUUGE pet peeve of mine, and I regard it as a huge problem in the world- it's a huge reason why the antivaccine movement is a thing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The problem isn't that people don't understand science. The problem is people attempt to apply science beyond what their ability is.

Most people know where their ability lies and do not try to push past it. They properly defer to experts, or learn up to the line and don't extrapolate past there. Some don't know though. This typically arises in the form of people finding papers/studies, and trying to draw conclusions from them; unless your an expert in the field, rigorously trained as a scientist, or having someone to help you, you can't do it. I'm not saying this to sound haughty. The fact of the matter is science is really really difficult, and unless you have training you can't pull it off past your ability. It's the equivalent of a 40 year old desk worker attempting to run a marathon based on the fact that they jog for a mile 3 times a week. Sure, you know how a marathon works in principle, but actually doing it is another matter and impossible. It's a HUUUUGE pet peeve of mine, and I regard it as a huge problem in the world- it's a huge reason why the antivaccine movement is a thing.

Ok, but those two are basically the same thing when you draw the bottom line ? Since technological civilization simply forces people to come in contact with science, which they generally don't understand.


However that is one of the main problems of this world. There are more and more specializations since there is more and more knowledge, therefore communication between fields is becoming harder and harder. While comminication with people who are completely out of the loop basically depends purely on the will of those people. Since they lack so much that for them this is black and white question that can be answered with whatever they feel like at the moment. 150 years ago you could know pretty much everything there is and today if you know 0.5% you are "genius".

 

[Tellenbach]

As I see it, the philosopher poses the questions and the scientist tries to answer the questions.

There are many questions about spirituality that science cannot answer and this is where philosophy excels. The philosopher may not be correct but he'll at least provide some possibilities and that in and of itself may provide lots of comfort to many people.

 

[Coriolis]

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.

There's more to it than that. Science and philosophy are two different approaches to reasoning. When I was a kid, I was very much into science. In my late teens I became interested in philosophy, I went through a Nietzsche phase at 19-20, and read books about the history of philosophy, passages from the books of famous thinkers. I think philosophy really, really, made me question the foundations of science and the way science works. I don't reject science, and I do feel it is fine for humans to study the natural world around us, but I also felt like philosophy showed me such an approach is limited. It's not absolute. For example, Kant's ideas about how we can only know the phenomena around us, and not "the thing in itself" struck a chord - how do we know that what we experience through our senses is the whole picture? Insects see things in different colours than we do, dogs see only in black and white, how do we know then that we perceive the world correctly or in a complete fashion? Science is based on observations through the senses, after all. So if we aeren't sure our perception is perfect (it isn't) as humans, what makes us think our interpretation of the stuff we perceive through our senses is infalliable? That was my line of thinking at the time. As a kid, on the other hand, I was curious about the world around me, and just read about it in books. I learned facts. But what I later rejeceted was an understanding of the world based solely on a series of facts, the walking encycopedia isn't prone to critical thinking, lol.

I also read tha Carl Sagan quote about how science is more a method of knowledge than a body of facts (or something like that), and while that may be, many science people seem to dislike philosophy nonetheless.

Also, I know that guys like Isaac Newton, Aristotle, Descartes, etc were into both philosophy and science, but they lived at a time when science was so much less developped than today. It's not comparable.

Thoughts? Which do you prefer philosophy or science and most importantly, why?

A number of points:

1. I don't know any scientists who consider science to be absolute. Since this is my profession, this represents quite a few people.

2. My scientist colleagues likewise do see science as a method of learning about the world rather than as a body of knowledge. Sagan was not the only one or even the first to articulate this perspective.

3. It's not that science was less developed at the time of Newton et. al. (and I'm not sure it was; it was the body of knowledge discovered by applying scientific inquiry that was more limited. It is more that the various disciplines for studying the world were more integrated. Today, there are sharper divisions between philosophy and science, but also among the various scientific pursuits: physics, chemistry, math, biology, the various engineering discipines, etc. There is also further specialization within each of these, which is likely related to the significant growth in the scientific body of knowledge. In fact in Newton's day, at least some university faculty were required to take holy orders, and it was not uncommon for the same individual to shift from teaching and studying physics or math to theology. That sort of crossover would be unthinkable today, notwithstanding that many scientists are people of faith.

4. While it is certainly true that science rests on observations made via our senses, that overlooks the many ways in which application of scientific inquiry has allowed us to extend our senses. We can measure and characterize light outside the range of human vision and sound outside the range of human hearing. We can measure parameters like temperature, pressure, humidity, vibration, distance, force, and many others in areas not directly accessible to us. Sure - we are still reading the gauges and meters with our eyes, or listening to their output with our ears, but these tools extend the "range" of our sensors by orders of magnitude.

5. How do we know that what we experience with our senses is complete, or that our interpretation is infallible? We don't, and it doesn't really matter, except inasmuch as we continue to add to our observations and refine our interpretations. A main goal of science is to predict future outcomes. If these predictions are accurate and repeatable, science has done its job.

6. So, which do I prefer? Science, as I see it as having greater utility, both as a methodology for understanding the world around us, and in the specific discoveries and knowledge it has led to. Doesn't mean I consider philosophy useless or even uninteresting. In fact, some of my undergraduate coursework involved philosophy of science, which gets especially interesting when one folds modern physics (e.g. quantum mechanics, relativity) into the mix. Given finite resources in life, however, I have chosen to focus primarily on science.

Isn't it weird how this dichotomy keeps coming up but never has math in it? Math is not science, science is not math. Though math is rooted in deductive logic, I've never heard it referred to as a philosophy, either. So every time someone has asked a question like "is science the answer to everything?", I first think of math, rather than philosophy, in giving that question a negative.

I have seen math called the language of science.

. . .Nye is now convinced philosophy and science overlap, with both fields in pursuit of the justified true belief. “It’s an intimate connection,” he said. “What used to be called a ‘natural philosopher’ is now called a scientist.”...

I disagree with Nye on this one. Philosophy and science are different ways of learning about the world. One must use the right tool for the job, and yes, there is overlap. But belief has nothing to do with science. Belief is acceptance of a notion in the absence of evidence, which is antithetical to the process of science and its basis in observation and experiment.

The problem isn't that people don't understand science. The problem is people attempt to apply science beyond what their ability is.

I disagree. I think most people really don't understand science. They may be quite capable of it, but they either extrapolate from limited knowledge, which seems to be what you describe, or were misinformed at the outset. Given what I have seen of science teaching through my volunteer work, there is plenty of the latter going on. This is why people misuse terms like theory, speak about "belief in science", and mistake the output of science for the method.

Science is at the same time both harder and easier than most people think. The easy part is the curiosity that seems to be an inherent quality of children, but gets stifled somewhere along the line as we grow up. That sense of wanting to know why things are the way they are, of wanting even those "stupid" questions answered. If we could only preserve this curiosity, we would be in a much better place than we are now. The hard part is in coming up with satisfying answers to the questions. That takes not only the creativity to design experiments and interpret observations, but also the patience, perseverence, attention to detail, and technical skill to follow through on it. It all starts off with asking the right questions, though, which comes right back to that sense of curiosity.

As I see it, the philosopher poses the questions and the scientist tries to answer the questions.

There are many questions about spirituality that science cannot answer and this is where philosophy excels. The philosopher may not be correct but he'll at least provide some possibilities and that in and of itself may provide lots of comfort to many people.

The questions asked by science and philosophy (as well as spirituality) are usually quite distinct. As I wrote before, we need to use the right tool for the job.

 

[Dreamer]

I like open-ended possibilities and concepts, the what-ifs. Talking about such things is fun and exhilarating! I could approach this question like many others have and run through the definitions, but this time around, I'm keeping my answer simple. Oh, and my answer being, "philosophy" to say it directly.

 

[Bush]

1. I don't know any scientists who consider science to be absolute. Since this is my profession, this represents quite a few people.

As another scientist by trade and a dude who has worked with a pretty sizable pool of scientists, ... I haven't really run into this either. Science seems to be touted as the "end-all, be-all" only by people with little experience or knowledge about science.

Anyone who truly knows their own discipline should be well aware of its scope, including strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and potentials for misapplication. Science is definitely included there.

 

[MyCupOfTea]

Academically, I'm going to choose science, as opposite to opinion or belief. Philosophy is a part of science: you cannot escape philosophical questions like epistemology and ontology when doing a research whatever is your discipline.

 

[MyCupOfTea]

Anyone who truly knows their own discipline should be well aware of its scope, including strengths, weaknesses, blind spots, and potentials for misapplication. Science is definitely included there.

Well said!

I think that research trends can be major blind spots in academics. When there's let's say a new research method which "everybody" is using because it's "the thing", it probably needs a critical eye.

 

[barnkaetzchen]

Science and philosophy are two different approaches to reasoning.

I feel like this right here is exactly the problem. It's comparing apples and oranges. They are just different. And as such, they are both useful tools for understanding. I think it is necessary for any philosophy to take science into account, given that science is the more empirical, observable evidence. But philosophy will shape how we view that evidence, as well. Both are changing and developing constantly. They have to as our understanding grows.

Now, as to which I prefer, that's complicated. I don't know that I could say prefer. I have a lot of respect for both. My personal passion is psychology, philosophy, spirituality (not religion), and where those overlap. So I suppose I'm inherently more interested in philosophy, but I wouldn't take it as a higher authority than science.

 

[Lord Lavender]

By far I prefer science as science can like invent shit and get us outta Earth to explore the cosmos but philosophy has a importance in how we handle the advancement of science llke is it right on a philosophical level to displace native unintelligent life in order to settle said planet as some will say we are the winners and therefore deserve that prize while others will incline it is against the universal golden rule to be mean to things. IMO science is more the technical,mechanical and concrete side of advancement and philosophy more social, cultural and moral advancement.