Login

Join for Free!
118241 members


philosophy vs science

Discuss topics related to other sciences, post news that you feel our community needs to hear about. Any interesting discussions about pretty much anything are also welcome.

Moderator: BioTeam

philosophy vs science

Postby telanerv » Mon Jul 27, 2009 8:53 pm

Should anyone even entertain the words that philosophers put forth when their claims are backed up by words?
Answer: only if you want entertainment

These forums are for discussing science, not for claims made by people selling snake oil
telanerv
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 4:53 pm

Re: philosophy vs science

Postby AFJ » Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:26 am

telenerv,
1)Evolution must rest upon a philosophical stand of metaphysical naturalism. This is a philosophical persuasion that says all known phenomena and material have only natural explanation. This is based in humanistic thought i.e. if we did not have eyes, how could we define light.

2)Evolution also has a preconceived model i.e. the geologic timescale that all evidence must be interpreted to fit. That is why we have articles that tell us blood vessels found in dinosaur bones have been preserved for 68 million years. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
AFJ
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 146
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:59 pm

Postby gamila » Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:13 am

Should anyone even entertain the words that philosophers put forth when their claims are backed up by words?

science is based on words and puts forth it claims in words
ie the theory of natural selection is all in words
take the words
species
phylum
speciation
life
all nothing but words as well
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm


Re: philosophy vs science

Postby canalon » Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:25 pm

Right, science use word to communicate. That is true. But maybe you would care to share with us an alternative way of communication?

The point is, science use words to communicate about the real world and to share experiences. Those can then be replicated by others and then confirmed (or infirmed). So there is just more than words in science. And words do have problems, because they are never quite precise enough. However between rationale people they are useful, and discussion can be had, which suppose that people listen to one another and try to understand one another. Sadly until now you have refused to understand what has been explained to you at great length by many posters. You did your best to look like a fool. And congratulations, you managed very successfully. You have fully discredited yourself, and tainted a little more a discipline that did not need it.
Philosophy has a lot of interesting to say, but you proved that you are not a good speaker for it. I suggest that you go back to your books, have your sterile discussion with like minded people (or mute persons, it would not make much differences in your case, as you are not listening anyway).
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby gamila » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:56 am

science use words to communicate about the real world

thats a big call
to say the real world
just what is the real world apart from words

please tell us what the real world is
bear in mind philosophers hotley debate the issue
ie idealism
realism
the hindus just call it maya ie illusion - but that implys they know what is not illusion or real about the world
so please tell us just what the real world is
and dont say
the real world is what science tell us it is
as
1 that is just a circular argument
2) science has been telling us what the real world is for years and each new generation of scientist changes that view ie we where once told the real world was based on the bohr model of the atom
but that view was changed

scientific models of the world are always changing
so you cant real say science is about the real world -when models of the world are always changing

take deans point about species
biologists tell us the real world is made up of species
but
when you investigate that claim you see as has been pointed out the term species ends in meaninglessness ie contradiction
so just what is the so called real world

lets take words
we can only understand the world by words
so whose words capture this real world your say science is about
is it
hopi
latin
chinese
swahili
english
etc

just which language is the privilaged system to understand the real world
gamila
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 12:20 pm

Postby canalon » Sun Aug 02, 2009 1:38 am

I must that I am not surprised by your answer. I was kind of expecting something like that.

But once again you do very selective quoting. I was indeed saying that language is imperfect but is also the only way we have to communicate. So yes anything using langugae will be imperfect, but we do our best.

Now we can push your arguments a bit further: this exchange is just made of word. Words cannot be trusted to represent reality, so I cannot prove that we are discussing. Now unless you prove me that you are not just a figment of my own (admitedly perverted and sadistic) imagination, I do not see the point in communicatin with you any more...
Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
User avatar
canalon
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 3909
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:46 pm
Location: Canada

Postby AstusAleator » Sun Aug 02, 2009 7:22 pm

I believe sado-masochistic is what you're looking for there canalon. But, then again, those are just words too :D
What did the parasitic Candiru fish say when it finally found a host? - - "Urethra!!"
User avatar
AstusAleator
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 8:51 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: philosophy vs science

Postby Sophyclese » Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:57 pm

Philosophy is only meant to question other humans around us and their way of thinking. Also, Philosophy almost never gives an answer to any of the questions asked.
Science, however, does ask questions about the world around us as well as searching for the answer to those questions (theories).
Philosophy deals with the questions and opinions of the mind, never with actual facts. Science deals with questions of the mind, yes, but questions about FACTS and not opinions.

Please give me your thoughts on Philosophy vs. Science.
My username is Sophyclese.
User avatar
Sophyclese
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:13 pm

Postby david23 » Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:46 pm

Modern Philosophy taught in schools do not conflict with science principles, they cooperate with it very well. And they dont go so far as to make up new things like in ancient philosophy EX: Aristotle's long long erroneous beliefs about chemistry and physics.
david23
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 8:15 am

Postby cherib » Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:52 pm

Just my two cents...

In my opinion philosophy and science are intertwined in a complex (mutualistic!) symbiotic relationship. Metacognition and epistomology allow one to recognizing patterns and possible bias in one's own thought process- this important for any scientist because bias can affect how data is interpreted and utilized. Philosophy encourages us to question reality as we know it, and to form opinions about the relationships and processes that make up our natural world. Science allows us to test these opinions, and through the process of trial and error (or trial and success) we develop a factual basis for our beliefs. It is important to note that ALL scientists (and philosophers) should never be absolutely certain about anything- confident, yes, certain, no. For example, the laws of physics that are ingrained in our society (i.e. Newton's Laws, for one) hold true on Earth, but once you get into space, or examine a phenomenon on the molecular level, everything that was once "certain" becomes false. There is so much we don't know (and probably will never know) that it is not logical to categorize anything as absolute. All biological systems are perpetuated by constant movement, interaction, and change- I guess you could call it fluidity in a sense- and therefore our thought processes as scientists must be ready to adjust to whatever the data is telling us, even if it isn't what we originally expected. Philosophy encourages thinking "outside of the box" and questioning the why and how- without it, there would be nothing to question because reality would only what was tangible and instantaneously certain. As a student of both philosophy and biological science, I believe both to be equally important in explaining and understanding our universe, our world, and our lives.
cherib
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:01 pm

Postby HylaCinerea » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:47 am

For me science to philosophy is physical to metaphysical. The scientist ponders how something occurs and the philospher ponders why it occurs.
HylaCinerea
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:39 am

Postby Jonl1408 » Thu Mar 17, 2011 10:16 pm

Why does no one pay attention to the fact that there is actual historical and scientific evidence that proves the Creation model.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould
User avatar
Jonl1408
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:26 am
Location: South Carolina

Next

Return to Off Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests