philosophy vs science

[telanerv]

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

[AFJ]

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

[gamila]

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

[canalon]

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).

[gamila]

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

[canalon]

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...

[AstusAleator]

I believe sado-masochistic is what you're looking for there canalon. But, then again, those are just words too

[Sophyclese]

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.

[david23]

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.

[cherib]

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.

[HylaCinerea]

For me science to philosophy is physical to metaphysical. The scientist ponders how something occurs and the philospher ponders why it occurs.

[Jonl1408]

Why does no one pay attention to the fact that there is actual historical and scientific evidence that proves the Creation model.