Could Science Exist Without Philosophy? (logic and reasoning)
Philosopher William Whewell created the name scientist in 1833,
prior to that they were called natural philosophers.
prior to that they were called natural philosophers.
Comments (40)
You've just made a truth claim independent of woo. If what you contend here is true, then you can't say what you just said and it be true. Or not?
The cat in the box?
Schrodinger
Heisenberg's uncertainty?
Or do some people think that philosophy means opinion?
Existence can not be proven and I have been to the Mountaintop
Hadn't encountered Whewell before, but discovered that he's a pretty major figure in English philosophy:
[quote=SEP Entry on Whewell; https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whewell/#SciInd]According to Whewell, all knowledge has both an ideal, or subjective dimension, as well as an objective dimension. He called this the “fundamental antithesis” of knowledge. Whewell explained that “in every act of knowledge … there are two opposite elements, which we may call Ideas and Perceptions” (1860a, 307). He criticized Kant and the German Idealists for their exclusive focus on the ideal or subjective element, and Locke and the “Sensationalist School” for their exclusive focus on the empirical, objective element. Like Francis Bacon, Whewell claimed to be seeking a “middle way” between pure rationalism and ultra-empiricism. Whewell believed that gaining knowledge requires attention to both ideal and empirical elements, to ideas as well as sensations. These ideas, which he called “Fundamental Ideas,” are “supplied by the mind itself”—they are not (as Mill and Herschel protested) merely received from our observations of the world. Whewell explained that the Fundamental Ideas are “not a consequence of experience, but a result of the particular constitution and activity of the mind, which is independent of all experience in its origin, though constantly combined with experience in its exercise” (1858a, I, 91). Consequently, the mind is an active participant in our attempts to gain knowledge of the world, not merely a passive recipient of sense data.[/quote]
(This is similar to a point I often make in these discussions. It seems Kantian, but the article differentiates him from Kant, saying 'For Whewell, though the categories do make experience (of certain kinds) possible, the Ideas are justified by their origin in the mind of a divine creator', which of course Kant would not say.)
However, I can't discern in that article any reference to Whewell having created the term 'scientist'. I had read that this term was coined by Charles Babbage, in the same decade, in the context of the philosophers that used to meet in Babbage's salon (this account was given in Walter Isaacson's The Innovators.)
Even if this is true, it still leaves us with a key question. How can you determine good from bad philosophy? Supplementary question: Did you arrive at the right mountaintop?
If you want to start a discussion, you should contribute more of your own thinking before you ask us for ours.
This is true. The term "science" was introduced because "philosophy" was too broad back then. If you consider that philosophy has been around since (at least) Ancient Greece, it would only be natural that given almost 2000 years, it's field of enquiry would become quite large.
But then you have your answer, science is an outgrowth of philosophy. To speak loosely, you can't do away with your genes no matter how hard you try.
So sure, they'll be the rustic person like Dawkins or Tyson who deny or think philosophy is useless for science. But that just means they're operating with an impoverished metaphysical framework, closely linked with positivism.
It's still part of philosophy.
Maybe not in that article, but it is not a secret. To be fair, it's not quite common knowledge.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127037417
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27114
Actually that Edge article makes an interesting remark:
Whereas, according to current science, thought cannot aspire to anything loftier than successful adaptation. But I'll let it go. Although casting about for more background on Whewell, I came across this.
I think theMetaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by E.A. Burtt says something about the topic. But it's been a while since I read that and I could be wrong.
Interesting article thanks for sharing.
One hasn't become the other and in no substantial sense were they ever synonymous; natural philosophy and the natural sciences are just complementary practices such that the former is always implicit in the latter and the latter constrains and informs the former.
Quoting Tom Storm
Pseudo-questions (i.e. context-free), fallacious arguments, obfuscating rhetoric and rationalizing (apologetics for) pseudo-science seem to me hallmarks of "bad philosophy".
Critical reasoning is Philosophy
Logic is If/Then presentation of data
Only when all parties agree on the truth of facts and the logical deductive reasoning
can peer review be achieved.
E=mc2
However in quantum theory E=m
Either c=1 in all cases or we have an error
I don't think Scientists would appreciate unthinking laborer, nor should they.
Supplementary response: Can there be a wrong mountaintop if there is only one view?
Or were you referring to the left mountaintop?
I doubt it's impossible to do good science without peer review. Peer review might help reduce the odds of error, but it doesn't guarantee it.
Peer review could also lead to infinite regress. Every peer review would itself need to be peer reviewed, and the reviewers of the peers would need to be reviewed ad infinitum.
~R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, Introduction, "Science and Philosophy"
So my point was how do you know you are right? You seem dogmatic, like a Christian apologist. The 'only one view' response is curious. Capital T truths are fraught.
Agree although the pseudo-questions is a new one for me. Makes sense. Can you say some more?
Reference was MLK, I've seen the promised land.
There was no sensory vision, but all became clear.
Not Christian but not opposed.
[quote=Some Guy]Science is a wholly owned subsidiary of materialism.[/quote]
Science makes no bones about what it's about - study of matter & energy within a mathematical framework as far as possible and physics is its poster child.
But then,
[quote=Bertrand Russell]Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.[/quote]
This thread is an all-important one because it reveals what's a startling truth as far as I'm concerned which is something as simple and as innocuous as a name change can make such a huge difference - science commands more respect and is treated as a real subject compared to philosophy which has now been relegated to just something a university needs to complete the set so to speak.
Stage Name
[quote=Wikipedia]A performer will often take a stage name because their real name is considered unattractive, dull, or unintentionally amusing; projects an undesired image; is difficult to pronounce or spell; or is already being used by another notable individual, including names that are not exactly the same but still too similar.[/quote]
No.
Never.
Next subject, please.
teach how to think, not what to think.
Present material as well as the process used to arrive at consensus.
The goal was to get them to ask why are these considered facts.
:clap: :fire:
Why not? Philosophical thoughts like 19th century scientists had did certainly contribute. Physicists back then were philosophers of Nature at the same time. They had more comprehensive views on reality than modern-day ones.
considered witchcraft.
Each measurement of Climate is an evaluation of climate and changes
the frequency that it is being evaluated.
"Each measurement of Climate is an evaluation of climate and changes"
Why should a measurement be an evaluation? Because you compare all measurements at tbe same time the measurement is made? What is an evaluatiin of the climate?
An example of slight misrepresentation,,,
The process of frequency observation changes that which is a frequency
Viscosity measures the flow rate and by measuring the flow rate you change the viscosity
And since there are no Philosophical Facts,
Both SSU and The Mad Fool must agree that there can be no Scientific Facts.
THIS IS CALLED LOGIC
The connexion between science and philosophy stretches bsck to the very beginning of philosophy or should I say science. Is there a difference?
No.
Actually that is only your Philosophy.
The philosophy of that "there are no Philosophical Facts, hence there can be no Scientific Facts".
Sorry, but you cannot do without Philosophy here. Logic needs a logical system. And picking that system to model reality is a philosophical choice.
Only that perhaps philosophy does have some fields that clearly aren't science or scientific. Or you have to have quite a philosophical view to think that Aesthetics, Ethics, Religious Philosophy or Metaphilosophy are part of science.
19th century scientists, and those before and early 20th century ones, were still the both. Newton had interest in alchemy, Einstein strongly believed in god (though I discreet with his view on creativity), and Mach had a strong philosophical bend. Where are the present-day counterparts of Bolzmann, Schrõdinger, Bohr, Newton, etc.
Maybe we can count Bohm, Capra, Penrose, and many more as such. Luckily they are still there.
There is science and perspective science and they are in spectrum to each other. Both have constants of application to produce the same results over and over again. Both build on each other. If science can not find the solution, then science goes to perspective science and vice versa.
Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler