Jump to content

What is the real difference between science and philosophy?


dimreepr
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Stop being so obtuse. It was knowledge at the time. Until science and Copernicus/Galileo.

The earth was for all intents and purposes certainly flat, for billions of people. That was there knowledge [false as we now know it] and poor philosophy.

 Sir, there is no false knowledge. Ask around.

False beliefs, yes, but not false knowledge.

Edited by Davy_Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I've heard that Shaw quote before and responded to it.

You do realise that Shaw was a playwright (i.e. a dude that makes stuff up for a living), right? Noted for his wit. 

These guys are also noted for making liberal use of various rhetorical devices (metaphor, oxymoron, etc). I suggest this is one such case.

 

 

"Most epistemologists have found it overwhelmingly plausible that what is false cannot be known. For example, Hillary Clinton did not win the 2016 US Presidential election. Consequently, nobody knows that Hillary Clinton won the election. One can only know things that are true."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/

Edited by Davy_Jones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davy_Jones said:

Ah, I've heard that Shaw quote before and responded to it.

You do realise that Shaw was a playwright, right? Noted for his wit. 

These guys are also noted for making liberal use of rhetorical devices. I suggest this is one such case.

As it appears you are...making liberal uses of rhetorical devices that is.

And certainly doesn't make it any less a valid statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

Forget Shaw and his razor wit. Go googling and see how many hits for "false knowledge" you get.

And good luck!

 I'll stick with Shaw and his knowledge, as well as the many other explantions/reasons I have given, but I'll also play your pedantic game. 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=false knowledge

false knowledge:

A person telling someone, about or how to do something, when in reality the person does not know what they are talking about and is talking dangerous ignorance.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(01)05552-0.pdf

 

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/false knowledge

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

False knowledge of course as we all know, becomes myth, or lies, or mistaken or dangerous interpretations, once it has become known. Until though it becomes known, it remains as knowledge in the eyes and minds of those that accept it.eg: religious beliefs, faulty philosophical rhetoric or rantings, and those that accept such..

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In parallel universes/multiverse every version of knowledge (except math) somewhere is true and some version of history happened somewhere..

If you are looking at a sci-fi movie (or normal movie), or reading a book, it happened, or will happen in the real world...

("Idiocracy" was comedy now thx to ex-POTUS is document)

Scientists accept only the universe in which they are now currently. As you can examine only this universe. Have no access to parallel universes nor the multiverse. If you would have, you would end up as a crackpots anyway..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@beecee (post above)

For all I know there might be people out there who use the expression "married bachelor".

Taken literally, we have a contradiction in terms, as we do with "false knowledge".

Such expressions, I suggest, have to be taken in a playful mood, e.g.

"Our pal Jimmy is a married bachelor" understood to mean that Jimmy has not officially tied that knot, but he might as well have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

@beecee (post above)

For all I know there might be people out there who use the expression "married bachelor".

Taken literally, we have a contradiction in terms, as we do with "false knowledge".

Such expressions, I suggest, have to be taken in a playful mood, e.g.

"Our pal Jimmy is a married bachelor" understood to mean that Jimmy has not officially tied that knot, but he might as well have.

Analogies are just that, analogies, most have limitations, your's has no applicability at all. In the case of false knowledge as per Ptolomy era and a Earth centered philosophy, all believed and accepted that as it is detailed.

Your "married Bachelor" nonsense is known for what it is, and for all intents and purposes, obviously would not stand up where a marriage certificate is designated or required. They are a single couple living together as a married couple.

None of this though invalidates the practical nature of science and the subjective  nature of philosophy and thinking.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you are equating 'reality' ( the eart is NOT flat ) with the working theory ( mistaken ) of the people who proposed it. 

Didn't we already have 8 pages of this discussion ?
Are we going to re-hash it all, so you can come to the conclusion that the word knowledge conveys a different meaning for a scientist ( an evolution of commonly accepted information ), than that from your quotes of Philosophers ( the absolute 'truth'; whatever that is ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MigLand @beecee

Well, guys, on your account--that knowledge doesn't imply truth--we should be able to say the following:

 

"It was once known that the Earth is flat. It is now known that the Earth is (roughly) spherical. The Earth has been known to be both flat and spherical."

 

Now, no one has dibs on how the English language has to be used. Speak any way you like. All is I can say is: if you'd be willing to give a lecture to 100 knowledge thirsty students and say that (above), your cajones are bigger than mine. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Frankie Boyle's take. Read more here...

Quote

 

He cites the philosophical concept of phenomenology in defence of his work – the idea that the gag is formed in the mind of the listener, so ...

But it’s not as if those who’ve taken umbrage have analysed each joke and decided it’s outraged their humanity, he argues here. Rather they haven’t examined the joke enough; they haven’t seen the intent or understood comedy’s licence to be transgressive in a safe way. They’ve heard a trigger word and sent an angry tweet.

Here's a practical use.

https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjmh.2020.0019?download=true&journalCode=bjmh

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Davy_Jones said:

@MigLand @beecee

Well, guys, on your account--that knowledge doesn't imply truth--we should be able to say the following:

 

"It was once known that the Earth is flat. It is now known that the Earth is (roughly) spherical. The Earth has been known to be both flat and spherical."

 

Now, no one has dibs on how the English language has to be used. Speak any way you like. All is I can say is: if you'd be willing to give a lecture to 100 knowledge thirsty students and say that (above), your cajones are bigger than mine. :)

Knowledge implies what we know...or what we think we know. During the age of Ptolomy the knowledge available, couples with the influence of the church, was that the solar system was the universe and that the earth was the center of that system. 

That was false knowledge, you know, as I linked for you a couple of posts back?         Since those days, observational data by Galileo and Copernicus has shown that to be wrong. Our knowledge now is more complete because science and technology has shown us that we are in a heliocentric solar system, situated on the outskirts of a spiral arm in a galaxy, just one amongst many billions of other galaxies. That knowledge is pretty close to reality, although as we all know, and to the dismay of "some" philosophical types, our scientific theories and models, as discussed in the gravity thread, are meant to be useful applications for calculations and not necessarily true or reality, whatever that maybe and if it at all exists.

False knowledge of course as we all know, becomes myth, or lies, or mistaken or dangerous interpretations, once it has become known. Until though it becomes known, it remains as knowledge in the eyes and minds of those that accept it.eg: religious beliefs, faulty philosophical rhetoric or rantings, and those that accept such.

But this thread is about the differences between science and philosophy.

On that issue, I'm with Professors Krauss, Degrasse-Tyson and the late Professor Hawking, and I suggest many others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 9/6/2021 at 2:13 PM, dimreepr said:

What is the real difference between science and philosophy?

The topic, of course.

23 hours ago, MigL said:

One is based on evidence/observation; the other on mental gymnastics.
( no offense meant, Eise )

When it is no offense, what is it?

I always wonder how physicists could say philosophy is useless, during them making philosophical remarks or ponderings.  Take the famous Feynman video about 'what is magnetism'. He nearly does not talk physics: instead he is pondering what such 'what is ...' questions factually mean, and what physics can say about it (not what physics says about it). In another video he explains the role of experiment in science. But that is not physics either. So what is it? To give a hint: it starts with 'ph' but ends with 'y'... To repeat my disclaimer:

Quote

There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

Maybe it is a bit too harsh: I think the great minds examine this philosophical baggage, can explain it, maybe even justify it. Feynman is a fine example, even where he ridicules philosophy. It must haven been the quality of the philosophy lectures he visited.

 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Eise said:

The topic, of course.

I think, perhaps, it's the language; as Markus said in another of my topic's, if you understand the language of mathematics, you can just shut up and calculate and come to the same conclusion's as any other physicist.

To avoid any ambiguity, I'm a philosophy convert.

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Knowledge implies what we know...or what we think we know. During the age of Ptolomy the knowledge available, couples with the influence of the church, was that the solar system was the universe and that the earth was the center of that system. 

That was false knowledge, you know, as I linked for you a couple of posts back?         Since those days, observational data by Galileo and Copernicus has shown that to be wrong. Our knowledge now is more complete because science and technology has shown us that we are in a heliocentric solar system, situated on the outskirts of a spiral arm in a galaxy, just one amongst many billions of other galaxies. That knowledge is pretty close to reality, although as we all know, and to the dismay of "some" philosophical types, our scientific theories and models, as discussed in the gravity thread, are meant to be useful applications for calculations and not necessarily true or reality, whatever that maybe and if it at all exists.

False knowledge of course as we all know, becomes myth, or lies, or mistaken or dangerous interpretations, once it has become known. Until though it becomes known, it remains as knowledge in the eyes and minds of those that accept it.eg: religious beliefs, faulty philosophical rhetoric or rantings, and those that accept such.

But this thread is about the differences between science and philosophy.

On that issue, I'm with Professors Krauss, Degrasse-Tyson and the late Professor Hawking, and I suggest many others.

 

Adding to the above any knowledge is your interpretation of personal observation, and accepted norms as I hinted at previously. Truth/reality though is the definition of absolute [if it at all exists] and consequently knowledge based on that is not always true. How many times has science been determined wrong through new observations and research? That alone is the beauty of science, as I have said previously and is always ignored by our troofers in that it is the discipline in eternal progress, as dictated by the scientific methodology.

 

26 minutes ago, Eise said:

I always wonder how physicists could say philosophy is useless, during them making philosophical remarks or ponderings. 

I don't believe anyone here was saying that, and the likes of Krauss was simply saying that much of which at one time was pure philosophy, is now being part and parcel of theoretical physics.

26 minutes ago, Eise said:

Feynman is a fine example, even where he ridicules philosophy. It must haven been the quality of the philosophy lectures he visited.

Feynman certainly made some provocative quotes, but we also have had provactive statements regarding science. I'm neither philosopher or scientist, just an avid supporter of the scientific methodology, that has its foundations in philosophy. My only beef has been with one or two silly utterences in this thread.

Is philoosphy dead imo? No, but although at the foundations of science and the scientific method, has had some of its former territory overtaken and consumed by theoretical physics, but at the same time, the further science develops and creates models, the possibility of new philosophical questions will probably arise.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, beecee said:

I'm with Lawrence Krauss' recent critique of philosophy, which had the philosophers strangely jumping up and down in dismay.

Of course, but it is not strange. When a well known physicist makes such denigrating remarks about philosophy, where it is clear as day that Krauss knows next to nothing about what is actually happening in academic philosophy.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps you need to read Krauss's book.

From a philosophical point of view: no. For those interested in cosmology, of course, it is a good read (yes I read it). beecee, to understand the qualities of philosophy you must know what actually is being done at philosophical faculties. And to be honest, I think you have no idea. 

11 hours ago, beecee said:

Ptolemy also had "supposed" knowledge of the universe that stood for millenia.

There is of course also "false knowledge"

  I am afraid Davy_Jones is exactly on point: knowledge is commonly taken to mean 'justified true belief'. So false knowledge does not exist. What exists is people believing they have knowledge, and which turns out to be mistaken for knowledge. What Ptolemy beautifully shows: to make precise predictions of solar system events, Copernicus was a step back. So he had other grounds postulating his heliocentric model. Only when Kepler, based on precise astronomical observations by Tycho Brahe, came with his ellipses, the predictions really improved.

9 hours ago, beecee said:

Stop being so obtuse. It was knowledge at the time. Until science and Copernicus/Galileo.

The earth was for all intents and purposes certainly flat, for billions of people. That was there knowledge [false as we now know it] and poor philosophy.

 

  So, no. You confuse 'having knowledge' with 'believing to have knowledge'.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

Your "married Bachelor" nonsense is known for what it is, and for all intents and purposes, obviously would not stand up where a marriage certificate is designated or required. They are a single couple living together as a married couple.

  Nope. Given the definition of knowledge (justified true belief) false knowledge is a contradiction in terms. 'False beliefs' exist, but not false knowledge.

I think it really would be interesting to go into detail about the Ptolemy-Copernicus topic. Why do we say Copernicus' view is closer to the truth than Ptolemy, whereas the concrete predictions that followed from Ptolemy were more precise than those of Copernicus?

 

 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, beecee said:

That alone is the beauty of science, as I have said previously and is always ignored by our troofers in that it is the discipline in eternal progress, as dictated by the scientific methodology.

Such faith, the god of the gaps argument in reverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eise said:

The topic, of course.

Hello, Eise nice to hear from you again.

Science and Philosophy have some differences and some overlap.

And this topic is supposedly about the differences but there has been precious little discussion of these differences do far.

I would venture to suggest it is worthwhile giving some consideration to the ovelap or where they are the same as well, since this can actually highlight differences.

So here is an expansion of what I said earlier.

In respect of data I hold that (modern) philosophy is interested in/about the broad/core/underlying principles.
It is not interested in all the fine detail.

Science on the other hand is dedicated to observing/recording/correlating/catelogueing all the detail, no matter how fine.

This is one difference  - Why should there be only one difference as implied by Dimreaper's question ?

So are there more ?

 

As regards the truth of knowledge, I have some knowledge of Harry Potter.

Is that true of false ?

I hold this is an inappropriate question as some of it is true (HP is a character in a fictional series of books)

and some of it is false, as in the first line of the first book, "Harry Potter is a wizard".

 

As regards @Davy_Jones comment on

12 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

It makes far less sense to say "We're getting closer to X even though no one knows where X is".

Have you heard of Banach's fixed point theorem ?

Banach spaces are a branch of Mathematics that do precisely this.

But that does not make them universally applicable.

In fact there is considerable theory as to the applicability of the technique because it has very important applicability in Applied Maths and Computing.

 

Finally I have observed that both Science and Philosophy need qualifying to be complete

In studying the core principles of other disciplines, Philosophy overlaps many which Science does not

For example the  the Philosophy of the Arts, Moral Philosophy , Relious Philous Pholosophy and so on.

Equally they sometime both overlap differently on some subjects as my earlier example of fishing shows.

Both cases generate differences.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Studiot, yes, I was intentionally a bit short, because dimreepr does not like long answers (Oh, am I mean...).

I once wrote a  long post about what philosophy is, maybe I'll try to find it again. Edit: found!

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

In respect of data I hold that (modern) philosophy is interested in/about the broad/core/underlying principles.
It is not interested in all the fine detail.

Science on the other hand is dedicated to observing/recording/correlating/catelogueing all the detail, no matter how fine.

I think it is not a question of detail. But with the 'core/underlying principles' you surely have a point. (Yes, I left out 'broad').

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

As regards the truth of knowledge, I have some knowledge of Harry Potter.

Is that true of false ?

I don't know, so let's ask a question: 'Who was the head master of Hogwards, when Harry Potter became a student there?'

If you know, you have at least some knowledge of Harry Potter. You see, for the question to make sense, you have to take the context into account. And the context is a story. But because the story is well known, and published, above question can be answered. 

31 minutes ago, studiot said:

Finally I have observed that both Science and Philosophy need qualifying to be complete

In studying the core principles of other disciplines, Philosophy overlaps many which Science does not

For example the  the Philosophy of the Arts, Moral Philosophy , Relious Philous Pholosophy and so on.

Well, every discipline (I prefer that above just 'science': there also is theology, morality, as you notice) has its own basic methods, beliefs, and problems. When people are reflecting on that, they are doing philosophy. 

Edited by Eise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

And I'd reiterate, this is almost certainly a minority view in science as a whole (physics being the apparent exception).

Try asking a psychologist if he thinks consciousness is real.

Try asking a geologist if she thinks tectonic plates are real.

Try asking a paleontologist if he thinks dinosaurs are real.

Try asking a chemist if she thinks oxygen is real.

Try asking a neuroscientist if she thinks neurons are real.

Try asking Richard Dawkins whether he thinks natural selection is real or merely a theoretical postulate, useful for predictive purposes, but not to be taken at face value.

. . .

One might ask one's self which of these involve behavior apparent to the minimally-aided eye or simple instrumentation, and which do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

As regards the truth of knowledge, I have some knowledge of Harry Potter.

Is that true of false ?

I hold this is an inappropriate question as some of it is true (HP is a character in a fictional series of books)

and some of it is false, as in the first line of the first book, "Harry Potter is a wizard".

 

Speaking literally, to have knowledge of Harry Potter you would have to believe, or be able to say, some true things about Harry Potter.


Now, anyone who has had the misfortune to suffer through a course in the philosophy of language will know that the first 34 years are devoted to examining the sentence "The present king of France is bald".


The subject term ("the present king of France") fails to refer, as they say, on the grounds there is no present king of France.. There is some disagreement over whether such a sentence should be assigned a value of false, or neither true nor false. No one, however, at least no one I know of, thinks the sentence might be true.


To even stand a chance of saying something true, the subject term must refer. Let's take "Donald Trump"-- a term that refers-- as our example:


1. "Donald Trump is American"
2. "Donald Trump is Canadian"


The first statement is true; the second is false (as far as I'm aware).
Now, try for yourself with a non-referring term:


1. "Pegasus [insert predicate here]"
2. "The largest prime number [insert predicate here]"


I think you'll find--on the assumption that neither entity exists-- that nothing true can be said of either (with the possible exception of "Pegasus does not exist"). Since nothing true can be believed or said of Pegasus, one cannot have knowledge of Pegasus (note possible exception above).


Same goes for Harry Potter.

 

Now, any philosophy of language has to deal with fiction, i.e., non-literal statements. There is no consensus on how fictional sentences ought to be handled.


John Searle, for example, will tell you that we simply suspend the normal rules. E.g.


"Sherlock Holmes lives at 221a Baker Street" (if I remember the address right) is a true statement  . . . on the understanding that we are not speaking literally.


But if your daughter were to ask you, "Daddy, you mean there's really a dude with a deerstalker who lives at 221a Baker Street? I think we both know what you'd say.

So, in short, do you have knowledge of Harry Potter the person? No, because there is no such person. Nothing can be known about a non-existent entity. There is nothing to know.


Do you have knowledge of some kind? Yes, of course. We might say you have knowledge of literature.

 

Just my 2 cents' worth. Probably a loada crap. :)

36 minutes ago, studiot said:

Have you heard of Banach's fixed point theorem ?

No, I haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Davy_Jones said:

Personally, I see it as regrettable that certain scientists are not only ignorant of, but hostile to, philosophy.

As I have asked before, what philosophy will help me align a laser into a single-mode optical fiber?

The issue I have is that the topic is wielded as a blunt instrument. Are there areas of physics where philosophy would be helpful to scientists? Certainly. And I read about some of this, and the scientists are discussing philosophical issues (involving interpretations of QM, for example)

But it is often stated such there is the insinuation that every scientist would benefit from adding philosophy to the mix (and worse, IMO, when it comes from people who have demonstrated not understanding the science) and I suspect that is a source of the hostility.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Eise said:

Well, every discipline (I prefer that above just 'science': there also is theology, morality, as you notice) has its own basic methods, beliefs, and problems. When people are reflecting on that, they are doing philosophy. 

You seem to mostly agree with my comments.

Yes Philosophy (got it spelled right this time) overlaps many other disciplines.

You know I always hesitate to say all.

And that includes Science, as a general term.

But these are similaraties, even samenesses.

I still like to distinguish different branches of Science as in Materials Science, Earth Science ans so on.

I suggested Materials Science way back because it was probably the first bit of 'Science' conducted by humans.

19 minutes ago, Eise said:

But with the 'core/underlying principles' you surely have a point. (Yes, I left out 'broad').

My use of the separating slash it to try my best to overcome communication difficulties, introduced by differences of definition, and get my point across.
So I offer a range of words of similar meaning, separated by slashes.

In this instance I could have also included pith and essence.

Edited by studiot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.