The difference between philosophy and science
This discussion is a spinoff from “You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher.” In that discussion, several people compared not reading philosophy to not reading science. They noted, for example, that you wouldn’t hire a physicist or engineer who wasn’t properly educated, wasn’t familiar with the body of knowledge in their discipline. In response, I stated that philosophy is different from science. I gave reasons which, although I think they were correct, were probably vague and unclear. I was never really satisfied with my response.
Recently, I had a back and forth with @Artemis that set me thinking again - trying to get an answer that satisfied me more. This is what I came up with:
Quoting T Clark
To expand a little, here is a list of the subdisciplines of philosophy from the forum table of contents.
I’ve pulled out “Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics” because I’m not sure how to handle it. It seems to me it may belong outside philosophy along with science. I’m not sure.
My claim is that all of those remaining in the list do not deal with questions that have true or false answers. I’ve been trying to make the case that this is true for metaphysics, including epistemology, for at least four years, which is when I started a thread called “An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics.” In that thread, I claimed that metaphysical questions do not have true or false answers. Metaphysical propositions have no truth value, they are only more or less useful in particular situations. I’ve restated this many times since then, although I don’t think I’ve convinced many people.
For the rest of the subdisciplines on the list, I think my case is clearer. Morals, ethics, art, and politics clearly deal with values rather than facts. Religion is a bit ambiguous, since some think the existence of God is a matter of fact. Philosophies of science and language may seem like they are dealing with matters of fact, but I think that’s just because people have a hard time separating the science from the philosophy.
So, that’s my claim. As for this thread, although I’d like to discuss my position, the discussion is open to anyone else’s ideas about the differences between science and philosophy, even if they are unrelated to my ideas.
Recently, I had a back and forth with @Artemis that set me thinking again - trying to get an answer that satisfied me more. This is what I came up with:
Quoting T Clark
When science broke off from philosophy, it lost all the parts of it where you could be wrong. Philosophy as it remains is about values, not facts. You can talk about truth or facts, but nothing you say will be true or a fact. This ties in with my oft repeated refrain - metaphysical propositions are not true or false, only more or less useful.
To expand a little, here is a list of the subdisciplines of philosophy from the forum table of contents.
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
I’ve pulled out “Logic and Philosophy of Mathematics” because I’m not sure how to handle it. It seems to me it may belong outside philosophy along with science. I’m not sure.
My claim is that all of those remaining in the list do not deal with questions that have true or false answers. I’ve been trying to make the case that this is true for metaphysics, including epistemology, for at least four years, which is when I started a thread called “An attempt to clarify my thoughts about metaphysics.” In that thread, I claimed that metaphysical questions do not have true or false answers. Metaphysical propositions have no truth value, they are only more or less useful in particular situations. I’ve restated this many times since then, although I don’t think I’ve convinced many people.
For the rest of the subdisciplines on the list, I think my case is clearer. Morals, ethics, art, and politics clearly deal with values rather than facts. Religion is a bit ambiguous, since some think the existence of God is a matter of fact. Philosophies of science and language may seem like they are dealing with matters of fact, but I think that’s just because people have a hard time separating the science from the philosophy.
So, that’s my claim. As for this thread, although I’d like to discuss my position, the discussion is open to anyone else’s ideas about the differences between science and philosophy, even if they are unrelated to my ideas.
Comments (139)
A person observes a seemingly chaotic and unpredictable stream of phenomena. Over time, that chaos resolves itself into regularities and patterns after the observer tries on for size various templates and schemes to make sense of what they are seeing( the ‘facts’ as you call them).
They then produce from this template a formal hypothesis (value system) and test it out on subsequent events( facts) to see how well it predicts the future based on the past. These subsequent events can either validate or invalidate the hypothesis( true and false as you call it).
Even if the hypothesis is validated by experience, one can try out alternative hypotheses. One of these may produce a different way of organizing ones experience that may be preferable to the older way, even if the older way has not technically been invalidated.
Is what I’ve just described science or philosophy? It is both. Why choose Kant over Descartes or Hegel over Kant or Nietzsche over Hegel? Because a philosophy offers a template( what you’re calling ‘ values’) for organizing experience ( what you call ‘facts’) that does a better or worse job of anticipating events than other philosophies.
I like the way you've laid this out. Let me see if I can respond clearly. Here are the steps you lay out:
The process you've described is the scientific method, which is philosophy, i.e. epistemology, a valid process for obtaining knowledge. You haven't provided any information on the content that is being processed, i.e. actual observations, regularities, hypotheses, and testing. That content is the science.
In line with my way of seeing things, the process you've described, what we call the scientific method, is not correct or incorrect, it is more or less useful. We have found it to be very useful in a lot of cases. I'm a big fan of the scientific method.
There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists. Susan Haack
Quoting T Clark
I've noticed that you often come back to this point. I wonder if this is slightly evasive. Surely a scientific approach to a problem is more correct if the matter is a hospital research team trying to treat or cure cancer? Prayer would be an example of an incorrect approach.
We seem to go out of our way to avoid using terms like right or wrong, correct and incorrect, perhaps in an attempt to sidestep debate. I would argue that some approaches are correct if you want a useful outcome. In determining which approach to use, one can set a criterion of value relative to the task at hand. Happy to hear where I am wrong.
She calls science "a loose federations of interrelated kinds of inquiry."
Haack says there are a set of "inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers." You know... methods. Methods of science. The scientific method. I'm not trying to be cute. She's being lazy with her argument.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, I think we can all agree, at least all of us here, that using a scientific approach in researching cancer will be more effective, useful, than prayer.
Quoting Tom Storm
I strongly disagree that acknowledging that choosing a particular procedure is useful as opposed to correct is an attempt to avoid debate. It certainly isn't in my case. The selection is made on the basis of human value, usefulness, effectiveness. It's an important distinction.
Thought experiment.. Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is?
Probably not, but I'm not a philosopher. Why this question?
Quoting T Clark
This is not intended as a criticism or animadversion, but what's the point of elevating utility if there isn't a demonstrable correct way to arrive there relative to the issue at hand?
Quoting T Clark
Methods of cooking and legal enquiry too. I defer to her expertise. Have you read much of Haack's work? I am only making a superficial reference of her distinguished thinking on this subject (which I don't pretend to be familiar with except in overview).
I think it's a good example of the kind of distinction I'm claiming is important. I didn't propose it as a way to argue against your point. I ran the thought experiment on myself at the same time I proposed it to you. I think it's an interesting question. I'm curious how other people will respond.
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm not sure I understand your question. You and I agree that science is a better, more effective, way of searching for a cure for cancer than prayer. Does "better" mean "correct?" I'll reformulate that response in a way that is more difficult for my argument to handle - Is the statement "Science is a better way of finding a cure for cancer than prayer," true? That's really interesting. I'll think about it some more.
That's actually a field of philosophy altogether, called axiology.
In relation to your thought experiment.
Quoting T Clark
"The correct answer to what is the capital of France is Paris"
The correct way to study cancer is using science."
'Correct' plays a different role in both of these ideas.
And they are provisional - If you are studying people's 'lived experience' of cancer, the answer might be different.
If you are saying that, for some people, prayer might provide a better, or at least more humane, way to deal with their cancer than science, I agree. I was going to add an argument something like that, but I didn't want to deal with the issue with vague arm-waving. I should be able to address it head on.
What a good thread! Definitely helps to try and clarify these things.
I think part of my contention you touch on when you wrestle with excluding Logic and Phil of Math (or Phil of any Science) from your list of philosophical subdisciplines. I'll stick to talking about Logic though, because I know it better than the others.
Logic is the foundation for the other subdisciplines. You can't do the others without knowing Logic. Even if you dislike Logic and think some of it is wrong or whatever, you have to use the rules of Logic to get anywhere analytically.
The rest of philosophy deals with facts and truth in varying degrees. I think it would be more helpful to think of it less as "either/or" and more as "both/and." Philosophy deals with, for example, values AND truth claims. Metaphysics deals generally more with claims that either are or aren't true, and Ethics less so.
There's also the part that philosophy draws on data from the world to make claims. Ethics could, to some degree, make subject-less claims I suppose. Ethics could try to talk about how we should treat pink, invisible unicorns. But for the most part it's making value claims about the real world based on data that is either true or false. Although you can't derive and ought from an is, you still use is's to continue argumentation.
1. You ought not kick sentient beings. (ought)
2. Pink, invisible unicorns are sentient beings. (is)
C. You ought not kick pink, invisible unicorns. (ought)
Note that--with the foundation of Logic! --this is a valid argument, but not a sound one. Replace pink, invisible unicorn with dog, and you've got a sound argument. Philosophy has built in mechanisms to discuss truth and falsity.
Note also, that the enlightenment drive to distinguish so clearly and absolutely between the disciplines is losing steam. There is a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary approaches to .... well, just about everything.
How can something be both pink and invisible?
Unicorns don't exist either.
I'm not sure what you're referring to as irrelevant, but commonly people add the adjectives "pink, invisible" to unicorn to emphasize it's non-existence, because (as you rightly note) it's logically impossible.
:up:
:gasp:
Science gives true or false answers? I thought the pop wisdom was that scientific statements were never true, only probable. Or falsifiable.
And if that's the case, then distinguishing science from philosophy on the basis of truth and falsehood won't work.
To be clear, I excluded "Logic and Philosophy of Math" because 1) They seem different from the rest and 2) I really don't know what to say about them. As for Philosophy of Science, I didn't exclude it. Although I foresee some confusion fitting it into my scheme, I feel like I know enough to deal with it.
Quoting Artemis
There's a discussion to be had here, but I'm not going to dig in because 1) as I noted, I'm not good with logic and 2) I don't think the discussion we could have is specifically relevant to the issue I am trying to deal with.
Quoting Artemis
I didn't say philosophy doesn't deal with facts and truth. I said philosophy does not deal with questions that have true or false answers. For example, from Wikipedia entry for Coherence Theory of Truth - "Truth is a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole." This statement is about "truth," but, I claim at least, it is neither true nor false.
Quoting Artemis
Ok, let's try this - "It's wrong to intentionally harm people." Is that statement true? If so, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2," is? I'm working this out for myself at the same time I'm sending it back to you.
This is a philosophical, not a scientific, statement.
1. They are both based on prior knowledge.
2. They both add to prior knowledge new knowledge or new intuitive interpretation that makes sense.
3.1. Then science investigates the new intuitive interpretation and justifies or falsifies it with experiments or observations.
3.2. At the same point, philosophy does not try to justify its intuitive findings.
As you can see, philosophy satisfies itself with being logical and having logical / sensible / reasonable explanations.
Science does not stop at the explanation level; explanations can be justified or falsified. That's precisely what science does. It tries to falsify philosophical or scientific intuitive findings; if it succeeds, it debunks the finding. If in repeated tries (or at least in one trial) the facts NOT HAVING BEEN INCLUDED IN THE FORMATION OF THE THEORY AS FACTS, but were pointed at as necessary outcomes, do get observed, then the theory enters science and leaves the sphere of philosophy.
Not to say that the theory that has been accepted now as scientific can't become the basis of new ideas in philosophy.
Truth is temporary in its nature, and therefore truths are referred to by scientists as "current indicators makes us believe that..." Falsehoods, however, stick. "Scrutiny has proved it false."
Sometimes a faslehood becomes truth. This can be looked at that people believe that their opinion held is true; whether the opinion judges something to be false or true, does't matter, the opinion is true. Therefore when a falsehood flips to be true, the actual process is that the OPINION get shown to be wrong, the opinion that says that it's true that something else is false.
The theories can be found here (short form)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper
And here (long form)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach
Scientific antirealists hold the view that science is about building models that are empirically adequate i.e. they provide explanations for observational data and that's where science should stop, eschewing metaphysical baggage that comes with truth.
I don't quite get what you mean by science being "useful"
That's all I have on the philosophy of science.
The values are vigorously argued, however. A valid argument is what's common among these disciplines. They make use of facts to support their arguments.
[quote=The Real War on Science, Edward Dougherty; https://strangenotions.com/the-real-war-on-science/]Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.[/quote]
[quote=Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss;https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-metaphysical-muddle-of-lawrence-krauss-why-science-cant-get-/10100010](The discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012) illustrates is the ever present gap between theory and verification. The standard model was enormously successful in its account of the basic particles and the forces through which they interact. It was mathematically satisfying and elegantly based on notions of physical symmetry. Yet no one would ever have suggested that it must be correct regardless of any process of empirical verification. Such a process of verification lies at the heart of the scientific method. Theories are not self-verifying but always remain hypothetical constructs, subject to the next round of possible verification or falsification from the data.
This leads to a significant tension in the whole scientific project. Its drive is to seek intelligibility or patterns in the empirical data, to express these patterns in theoretical constructs, yet in the end it must deal with a brute fact of existence, which either verifies or falsifies these proposed patterns.
That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check."
I don't think you read my OP very carefully.
Yes, true.
Quoting Caldwell
Validity and truth are not the same thing. I didn't say, and I don't believe, that metaphysical questions aren't important and don't have value. In a sense, they are more important than facts, because we have a role in choosing the answer, even if we aren't aware we do.
Quoting Caldwell
I didn't say they didn't, and that isn't relevant to my claims. Or, maybe it is. Explain to me how.
I made some mistakes in my recent response that might be confusing. They will probably show up in the link notifying you of a mention. Go directly to the post instead of following the link.
For one thing, Schopenhauer's argument for morals cites suffering as a condition of humanity. I'd say, he is using a fact that there is suffering. (Those who would argue against suffering as a fact of life need only to look at illness, death, and disappearance statistics (all facts).
There's a valid example. Now explain how it is relevant to my claim. As I've noted, I never claimed that ethics and morals didn't involve facts, only that ethical and moral statements, positions, are not facts. Those are completely different things. Let's lay this out:
Agreed - human life involves suffering. It's even one of the fundamental facts of Buddhism. Where does that lead? Does it follow that humans have a responsibility to help our fellows deal with suffering? Is "Humans have a responsibility to help our fellows deal with suffering" a true statement. If so, is it a true statement in the same sense as "1 + 1 = 2" is?
…question made complicated because “science” or “philosophy” means different things to different people/contexts. With the shifting and inconsistent definitions it could lead to misunderstanding.
I think it was Wittgenstein, somewhere, who said that one of the problems with philosophy is the lack of consensus of what philosophy should entail, conflicting language games.
My initial thoughts, and I stand to be corrected or further elaborated by those with more expertise, is the relevance of methodology.
Hard science (as opposed to soft descriptive science) is more in the business of doing actual experiments, confirming/rejecting measurable hypotheses, ultimately, at least provisionally to establish casual connections, leading to more predictive power etc.
Otoh, philosophy is not usually lab work, but more to question or to clarity these presuppositions, it could for example examine the latent cultural structures in which these operate, or it could be a non-scientific (not anti-science) endeavour putting the emphasis on “being” back to some kind of primordial, non-dualistic thinking.
Oh cause you said morals deal with values not fact. So, I countered it with a response.
Metaphysical claims can't be true or false, you say.
Scientific antirealism is the view that science should refrain from making metaphysical claims, it being possible that metaphysical claims are true or false.
I know there's a difference between your claim and scientific antirealism but look at the similarity - you reject metaphysical claims and scientific antirealism holds that truth is not what science is about. An analogy will clarify the matter further. What's so different between saying "God exists" is neither true nor false and believing "God exists" isn't what's important?
As I've said in several posts in this thread, my claim is that ethical questions don't have true or false answers, i.e. that ethical statements are not facts. I never said that ethical arguments don't involve facts. That would mean that ethics has no relation to the world we live in, which would be silly.
Yes, I said that.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't understand. I just said that metaphysical statements are not true or false. This is why I thought you hadn't read the OP.
Quoting TheMadFool
I do not reject metaphysical claims. This whole thread is based on me making a metaphysical claim.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is outside the scope of this discussion.
Quoting TheMadFool
As I noted in the OP, "Religion is a bit ambiguous, since some think the existence of God is a matter of fact." For the purposes of this discussion, I don't have any further position on that matter. It's been argued many times on the forum. This is not the place to fight the battle again.
Quoting T Clark
:chin:
So, in what sense do you accept metaphysical claims. I have some idea of what that would look like :point:
Quoting T Clark
You'll have to explain what you mean by "useful".
Why are metaphysics and epistemology grouped together?
Quoting T Clark
Let's just go back to absolute basics for a second:
Metaphysics and Epistemology ask, do I exist and how can I know I exist?
Descartes answers, I think, therefore I am.
What, if anything, is not dealing with true or false answers to you?
P.s. As for the coherence theory of truth... well, I give you the correspondence theory of truth:
The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world. (From the Stanford Philosophy Encyclopedia)
Basic point being Science is that done by scientists and Philosophy is that done by philosophers. Some people can, amazingly (sarcasm), do both at different times.
In more common terms philosophy is more concerned with the validity of questions and science is more concerned with answering questions. Needless to say they can at times make the other look rather stupid.
This just feels like we're going around in circles.
Is this true? Is it false? If it's true, is it true in the same sense that "1 + 1 = 2" is true?
Quoting Artemis
I was using the statement about the coherence theory of truth to give an example of a statement about truth which is not true or false. It was not my intent to endorse a particular definition of truth. It works just as well for your correspondence theory:
Is "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," a true statement? If so, is it true in the same sense that "Paris is the capital of France" is true?
Is this different from what I said? Is it inconsistent with what I said?
I'm not sure if this is different from what I wrote or not. A question and a comment. 1) When you say "conceptual interpretations" do you mean like the various interpretations of quantum theory? Or maybe the big bang theory as an interpretation of the meaning of cosmological data collected by scientists? 2) In my experience, "nature" and "reality" are often used as synonyms.
The cogito is, as far as I am aware, the most indisputable truth there is. That was Descartes whole point.
Quoting T Clark
They're both true. But one is a definitional truth of a human construct: the Paris is the capital of France because humans invented both Paris and France and the idea of a capital.
The other is trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves (not as constructs, but as objectively existing observers) therein.
Gravity is dangerous. It makes us go round in circles.
By the way, people seem to enjoy merry-go-rounds! Odd that! :chin:
There are many philosophies and psychologies which do not recognize the existence of the self - me, myself, I.
Quoting Artemis
Just because "The truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world," is a useful way of "trying to make sense of objective, non-constructed reality and ourselves," doesn't mean it's true.
Are the correspondence and coherence theories of truth both true? My answer - No, neither is true.
Never heard of one that actually disputes the cogito. They dispute the Western concept of a whole self, but not that something exists which is thinking/observing.
But still: it's a truth claim. It's either true or false. The objections from others don't change that the cogito is either true or not true.
[quote="T Clark;616799"
Are the correspondence and coherence theories of truth both true? My answer - No, neither is true.[/quote]
Philosophical hypotheses don't have to turn out to be true to be considered truth claims anymore than hypotheses about gravity.
More "indisputable" than A=A? I doubt it. Anyway, tell me what Descartes actually proves with his "Cogito".
Quoting T Clark
No. I think of interpretations of "QT" & "cosmological data" as theoretical, not just conceptual.
In "experience", I agree; philosophically, however, reality delineates (some of) the conceptual limits (i.e. ontological incompleteness) of nature.
In other words:
Philosophy and science both make metaphysical claims. They differ in focus, but not in kind.
"The earth circles around the sun."
And "I think therefore I am" are both truth claims and the status of "truth claim" doesn't change even when something is indeed proven false.
I'm sure many people have questioned it. Here's an answer to the question "Is 'cogito ergo sum' true or false?" from Quora.
[i]Nietzsche had an interesting counter-point to this idea. Namely, he asserted that it would be more correct to say "something thinks, therefore something exists." To assert that "you" exist, you have to presuppose the existence of a unified "you" (which means that you are already assuming "I am"), which is non-trivial. After all, are we so certain that the mind is a single, unified entity? If that is so, then how can the mind be at odds with itself (an experience that I am sure that most everyone is familiar with)? So, perhaps, we should view not as the mind being aware of its own thought, but as a two-body system, where one entity thinks, and another entity perceives this thought. (I seem to recall that fMRI suggested that first the brain has an insight, and only afterward does the forebrain become aware of this fact, but I am not a neurobiologist and am not qualified to assert such a thing.)
Personally, I am of the mind (no pun intended) that "cogito ergo sum" is an axiom. It is something that we assume to be true, mostly because if it is not true, then there is no possible discourse that we could have, and that doesn't seem particularly useful.[/i]
Here's a link:
https://www.quora.com/Is-cogito-ergo-sum-true-or-false?share=1
I think "cogito ergo sum" is more a definition of existence than a statement about it.
Quoting Artemis
If my self doesn't exist, if there is no "I," "I think, therefore I am," is not a "truth claim," it's meaningless.
Quoting Artemis
Can you give a example of a scientific metaphysical claim.
A truth-claims' "status" changes from undecided to positive truth-value when demonstrated and then to negative truth-value when refuted. "Earth is flat" is a refuted truth-claim aka a falsehood rather than a true statement, no?
OK
...and you can ask these questions only because you are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language.
What separates science from non-science? Scientific method.
What's scientific method? Whenever someone sets a method out explicitly, it is found wanting. And that should not be surprising, since if scientific method were following a bunch of rules it would be not all that interesting. The most interesting science is the unexpected stuff, of course. If there were an algorithmic method that asymptotically approximated truth, Scientists would be no more than factory workers, grinding through a process. And if you think that's what they are, then we're paying them too much.
Understanding science as a culture rather than a method gives a much better account of what actually happens amongst scientists as well as explaining the historical improvements of scientific accounts.
That culture is one of open communication and critique, of readiness to be corrected, of collegiality. And such a culture is at home in sociology, history, and even philosophy. Not always, but mostly.
So what differentiates science from philosophy is more content than method.
:up:
Yes.
Yes exactly. Truth claims can either be falsehoods or true statements.
The suposition is that science deals with propositions that are either true or false, and that this differentiates it from philosophy.
So let's put it to the test:
Is F=ma true?
This Quora user is mistaken. Descartes was not assuming a unified self. He was asserting that thought requires/implies a thinker. It's almost a truism (and truisms, though potentially trivial, are still true!).
Quoting T Clark
Truth claims can be made about non-existent things: Unicorns are pink. Harry Potter is a wizard. God is almighty. They can simply be false by nature of referencing non-existent things.
Quoting T Clark
The earth revolves around the sun.
OR
The earth is the center of the universe.
Both are (as @Banno points out) content-wise scientific. One is false, the other true. They still are metaphysical truth claims. They differ in content, though not in form or kind from:
"I exist."
Or
"There is a an observer-independent reality."
The homunculus, sitting in its body-machine, making observations and hypotheses. A pervasive myth.
Again, we are embedded in a world that includes a language, other people, and a culture in which to employ that language. A baby does not derive the world from first principles and observation.
I was tailoring my post for T. Clark’s interests.The point I was trying to emphasize was the relation between science and philosophy. If I were writing to you I would compose it differently.
The difference between science and philosophy is not going to be reducible to some simple formulae. On this I suspect you and I agree.
Philosophy does not deal with empirical observations. and its hypotheses and theories (if philosophical speculations are to be counted as such) are not testable, so it is, in both these respects, different from science.
If anything, hypothesizing and theorizing are THE moments in which scientists attempt to do philosophy.
Hypothesis and prediction seem to consist in imagining, given the empirical observations that have been made. what forces or mechanisms could have been involved in producing the phenomena that have been observed, and then, when some hypothetical system has been conceived and explicated, predicting what other phenomena would likely be observed if the hypothesis were correct.If the predicted phenomena are observed then we have a theory, which remains falsifiable by further possible observations.
That doesn't seem to be significantly analogous to philosophical reasoning as far as I can see.
.
:up:
Just in case there is any confusion:
"Truth claim" is not the same as "true claim." It is a "claim to truth," in other words, "I claim X to be true."
This summarizes it neatly:
"A truth claim is a proposition or statement that a particular person or belief system holds to be true. "
And:
"A major division of truth claims is that between positive and negative truth claims. Positive truth claims proclaim the existence of an object or entity. Negative truth claims, which are the opposite of truth claims, proclaim the non-existence of an object or entity."
https://handwiki.org/wiki/Philosophy:Truth_claim
And bottle-washing. Lots of bottle washing.
Quoting Janus
Debatable, but if true, then we agree that the difference between science and philosophy is content, not method.
Quoting Janus
...by empirical observations. They are certainly testable.
...and yet these are central to science; hence, science is a form of philosophy?
Sounds precisely like philosophy.
Which shouldn't be surprising, considering science originated in philosophy and was generally accepted as part of philosophy until rather recently in human history (roughly, the Enlightenment period). That's why scientists have PhDs to this day!
Depends on the branch of science.
Quoting Banno
It seems the principles of valid reasoning should be central to both philosophy and science, as they should be to all aspects of everyday life, if that is what you mean by method. Too broad a brush, perhaps?
Quoting Banno
Are they definitively testable as empirically testable observations are? Can you give an example?
Quoting Artemis
Not to me. I have no idea why you would say that. Perhaps another difference between philosophy and science is that everyone seems to have a much clearer idea of what science is than they do of what philosophy is.
Quoting Artemis
You can get a PhD in literature, and many other disciplines. So all these disciplines originated in philosophy? And theology?
I don't think we need to overthink it or leave it opaque:
"Philosophy (from Greek: ?????????, philosophia, 'love of wisdom')[1][2] is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."
And some additional background which clears up some of this science distinction:
"Historically, philosophy encompassed all bodies of knowledge and a practitioner was known as a philosopher.[14] From the time of Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to the 19th century, "natural philosophy" encompassed astronomy, medicine, and physics.[15] For example, Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy later became classified as a book of physics.
In the 19th century, the growth of modern research universities led academic philosophy and other disciplines to professionalize and specialize.[16][17] Since then, various areas of investigation that were traditionally part of philosophy have become separate academic disciplines, and namely the social sciences such as psychology, sociology, linguistics, and economics."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Okay, good. That's what I thought, but then your emoji threw me off and I figured I'd better make sure we're actually on the same page :wink:
That's a nice historical story; so what is left for philosophy then, or in other words, what does philosophy consist in today?
Quoting Janus
:up:
Meh, life is too short to deal with rude people. Have a nice life!
Quote: "Today, major subfields of academic philosophy include metaphysics, which is concerned with the fundamental nature of existence and reality, epistemology, which studies the nature of knowledge and belief, ethics, which is concerned with moral value, and logic, which studies the rules of inference that allow one to derive conclusions from true premises.[18][19] Other notable subfields include philosophy of science, political philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind."
I just wanted to check if you and I are in agreement. For me, making generalizations from observations and the results of experiments and creating theories and models is part of science and is not metaphysical. From what you wrote, I think you agree with that.
"Harry Potter is a wizard" is neither a true nor a false statement. "In J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter book series, the character of Harry Potter is portrayed as a wizard" is a true statement. "Unicorns are pink" is neither true nor false. "Unicorns are sometimes portrayed as pink in color" is a true statement. Based on what she's written, "Artemis claims that unicorns are pink" is also a true statement.
In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement.
I had a bunch written up, but then I realized, we're more or less quibbling over semantics. You said before that a claim about a non-existent thing is meaningless, I say it's false. Tomayto, tomahto, because false simply means not true, and meaningless would mean not true as well. Same dif.
Quoting T Clark
It's a statement about the state or nature of an aspect of reality.
By that standard "My tummy hurts." is a metaphysical statement.
Yes.
But that leads us to what Banno and I were addressing earlier: where something veers into science versus philosophy versus literal and figurative belly-aching is more content-specific than anything else, and even there more overlap exists than one might initially assume.
That's a tough one. That would be the case if the self "T Clark" is a metaphysical entity.
It seems to me that selves are epistemological entities related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world.
However, we are part of the world too. So it's nebulous. There is a sense in which, narrowly defined, you can use metaphysics to refer to the world and epistemology to people. But, complex.
Precisely what I said, and you said it more succinctly and clearly. I think I said that philosophy does use empirical observations, but the interpretations it draws from observations is not meant to be tested, or is in a form that defies testing (because the particular philosopher does not know how to design a test). Case in point is my theory on ethics; so far many (or some) criticized it for its English, for using examples the critics did not like, for not saying what the critic had been thinking some time before the reading. But nobody has actually given it a critical reading and any valid criticism. The theory is described in two places on this forum, one short form, one long form.
The short form can be found here (I published it in response to criticism that the long form was too long):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper
And the long form, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach
Aren't the presuppositions of science (which go into making such a statement) comprised of metaphysical positions - e.g., that reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described? And wouldn't physicalism be the metaphysical foundation of science?
I think science can just study and speculate about nature as it presents itself to us, make predictions and see what works, without presupposing or concluding anything, other than provisionally to serve the abductive process; a kind of pragmatic phenomenology.
I don't agree with this. I see a relatively definitive delineation between metaphysical and scientific issues, statements, and questions. I call it "scientific" because that's the term we've been using, but it's more than that. It includes all of our regular daily interactions with the world.
I don't think it's that simple. "Not true" is not the same as "false." In this case, they live in different universes. I think this is an important issue, but I'm not sure I've been addressing it right in the past. I need to think about it some more.
Under some metaphysical schemes, my self is an illusion. I don't think that would make me a metaphysical entity, I think it would just mean I don't exist in that metaphysical universe. Click a switch, turn on a realist metaphysic, and T Clark, philosophical hero to the benighted masses flashes back into existence.
Quoting Manuel
Sorry, I'm going to be cute again - The world is related to how we think about ourselves and not necessarily an aspect of the world independent of us.
You've brought up "presuppositions," which is Collingwood's term for the content of metaphysics. Actually, he says "absolute presuppositions." I've shied away from using his terms because I was afraid it would send us off in a direction different from where I wanted to head. I'm glad you did though and I have no problem with using them more if it will help.
I think the way you've described it is consistent with my understanding of how metaphysics works. I think you're example - "Reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described" - is a good example of an absolute presupposition. As for science, I've thought that it's metaphysical foundation is related to physicalism, realism, and materialism at least. I'm not sure the implications of applying any of those three, or something else, to science.
This is fun.
I feel like you're setting me up for something, but I'll bite. "F = ma" is a scientific statement, and thus has a truth value. Yes, it is true.
The philosophy of science is to gain knowledge about the creatures, organisms, the heavens above, the deep of the oceans, the behavior of stuff in different circumstances, in the light of theories based on earlier knowledge, in the process sometimes annihilating previous theories, changing the ontology, or extending the old one. Science counts, slices, tears apart, smashes, heats up, drills, shakes, mixes, pulls, pushes, measures, observes, on the smallest as well as biggest scales, incorporating even the distant heavens to the urge and hunger for knowledge.
The philosophy of science is trying to unify. and reduce while natural reality is reshaped, trying to mold it such to be in agreement with the paradigm in fashion, or the mathematically exactly solvable. At the same time the limits of the paradims are pushed, in order to know what lies behind the limits, and more often than not unexpected new observations makes one cross a border to arrive at knew stages of knowledge, claiming that a breakthrough has been made. Experimental practice changes accordingly planning for new in the context of a new emerging paradigm.
The philosophy of science encourages the dissection and close investigation of plants, animals, and people (adequately named Homo Sapiens, the knowing man), gain knowledge of their workings and to try to frame them in some overarching vision, regardless cultures.
The philosophy of science stimulates the creation of a virtually endless succession of new means to create new forms of knowledge. Ad nauseam. It brings into play the concept of an objective, consciousness-detached reality (quantum mechanics trying in vain to bring it into play by means of an observer, after the damage has already been done), only to be known or approximated by science. In this process, man places himself outside nature and all beauty it contains (like people).
And on and on. The philosophy of science includes the scientific methodology, which is just a quasi-scientific attempt to frame the whole scientific enterprise in the quasi-scientific language of The Methodology. As if the human enterprise, erratically, non-rationally, non-programmed, or even maybe randomly, evolves. Scientists try crazingly to stick to this method, but that's merely empty verbiage.
Modern science is embedded in the market economy. Giving rise to new products growing on the scientific tree, and trying to convince the public of the wonders of technology, and making statements that a far-enough developed technology can't be distinguished from magic, overlooking the magic that can be found in nature. The formal language of math is used to quantify knowledge and it's even said that math is the language of nature, emphasizing its objectivity.
Once science and philosophy were not separated. Knowledge and talking about it were one and the same. In our time, I think philosophy should be more than just talking about science.
Interesting and well written. Welcome to the forum.
Not to quibble, but I don't see how this is relevant to the subject of this thread, specified in the opening post (OP).
Well, to be honest, I didn't read the OP. Only the title. It asked about the difference between science and philosophy. I gave a direct answer: science is knowledge, philosophy is talking about it.
Philosophy: the organon by which systems of study are determinable.
Philosophy means that, science means this, both science and philosophy are adverbs.
I produced a philosophical thesis, i.e. I did that.
I conducted a scientific experiment, i.e. I did this.
I'd argue then when a scientific experiment reaches the theorum phase it is philosophy, for this and that together create 'it'(pronoun).
I think I should be clear: this is how we deal with it in basic logic. There's a time and a place to get more into the details of the umbrella terms that are "true" and "false" in the context of logic.... but I don't think it's worth wading into at this particular juncture. Another avenue for a good thread perhaps?
Quoting T Clark
Ok. So what do you think that definitive delineation is?
I'm not sure if an experiment can reach a theorem phase, as the theorem phase comes mostly before the experiment phase. When quarks were first thought of (theorem phase) it took another ten years to experimentally confirm them, molding reality to make their existence explicit and almost tangible. A good accout of this process (sending the scientific method home at the same time) s given by Pickering,:
https://philpapers.org/rec/PICCQA
Recently, in one of the most complicated, extensive, and expensive experiments ever, designed to measure a simple quantity of one of the smallest particles, the muonic g2 factor, a miniscule deviation from a standard value was registered. And there are a variety of theorems to explain it, apart from the standard reaction of re-calculating the value in the standard model, which oddly enough is called the standard model. But the standard is under attack. Future experiments must decide. Strangely enough, in the spectrum of new theories, composite quarks and leptons are not present, or just thrown from the table.
Philosophy seeks wisdom. Science (as it is popularly conceived or practiced today) seeks to understand the natural world.
I'm not sure I understand. If you were to say the world is related to how we think about it, then that's fine. If we are thinking about ourselves the world is of secondary importance at best.
I've been thinking about what I wrote since last night. I think I was wrong and I feel bad, especially since it was your first day. I guess it was that you were writing about philosophy of science instead of philosophy in general, but that's silly.
As I wrote earlier, your post is interesting and well written.
Yes. We agree.
Quoting Artemis
This is what I wrote in a post to @Tom Storm earlier in this thread:
Quoting T Clark
As I noted, I was afraid to bring all this into this discussion because it deserves one of it's own. There have been many over the years, including one by me. I will start a "What is Metaphysics" thread. Unless you want to.
Most of what you write about the philosophy of science is about the goals of science. That's fine, but I don't think it's the most interesting or important part.
Quoting Verdi
You talk about the philosophy of science, but you don't really deal with the difference between that and science itself. This is one place you do:
Quoting Verdi
I don't agree with this, especially the cynical tone. Epistemology, which the philosophy of science is part of, is not "quasi-scientific." It's pre-scientific, that's the point. Based on what you've written, it doesn't seem like you think the philosophy of science is very important.
Maybe a separate thread on the philosophy of science would be a good idea. In almost any discussion about science here on the forum, science and the philosophy of science end up being all tangled together as if they are the same thing. Which, importantly, they are not.
@Verdi
[joke]One of the two of you will have to change your name. It's hard to keep you straight. [/joke]
Haha! Similar thought passed my mind!
This distinction between scientific theorizing - the generalization of models and theories from scientific data - and philosophy has come up several times in this thread. I think they are different. Theorizing and model building are part of science, not philosophy. Maybe this sounds nitpicky, but I think it's important.
I was getting a bit poetic, metaphoric, in my previous post. That can be confusing, but sometimes I can't help myself. I want to play.
As for your question - If I don't see my self as existing, that takes the support framework from around the world. Suddenly I don't know where I am. At what scale. Am I looking at galaxies or quarks? The whole subject/object distinction depends on me being at the heart of things.
I don't know about Eastern Traditions to be able to say much about that, if that's what you have in mind when speaking of having no self. Though galaxies and/or quarks still are representations, that can't be done away with. And we have good reasons for thinking these things belong to the world.
I think you are both a subject and on object. You are a subject so long as you have experience and are an object so far as you have a body.
In any case, both are required to do science as we now do it and philosophy too.
I agree that subject/object duality is needed for science, but not necessarily for philosophy. I don't think this is the place to go into that any deeper.
Old Greece is the origin of the term "philosophy". Meaning love for wisdom. Wisdom about knowing, or talking about the knowing. Not about the knowing per se, but surrounding thoughts.
Any philosophy, be it eastern or western, is the love for talking about the specific knowledge contained in a specific knowledge system, be it science, the knowledge of the eight-fold way, the knowledge of nature and gods in the universe in a magical outlook, the knowledge of astrology, homeopathic knowledge, etc. You get the picture.
In most knowledge systems, this separation of knowledge and talking about it, is absent. There is no word for philosophy in eastern philosophy. It's a Greek invention. Of course, we speak nowadays about eastern philosophy, but in the original views of the eastern tradition this distinction was not made. Talking about knowledge and the knowledge itself were not separated.
In ancient Greece, the roots of modern science and democracy were tiny structures, like capillaries. Nature was looked at analytically and tried to be placed in a mathematical frame. Philosophy was still part of this knowing. The talking about the knowledge was still a part of the whole. Philosophy of nature.
Then science, under the influence of the very idea that there is a difference between knowing and the talking about it, like the idea got hold that there is an independent reality about which things can only be known approximately, like Plato's realm of an independent realm of mathematics. The stuff known likewise separated from the subjective talk about it.
So science and philosophy became two different disciplines. Ethics, methodology, epistemology, ontology, logic, etc. were disconnected from scientific knowledge, a separation induced by the idea of a separation between an subjective observer and an objective reality.
The philosophy of science is the talking about scientific knowledge, and it is this scientific knowledge that western philosophy is talking about. But science is a large area, an philosophy is talking about political knowledge. Philosophy of the mind is talking about the knowledge of the mind. Philosophy of math, physics, the law, economy, theology, history, language, philosophy about any subject taught at the academia, being taught at a separate faculty. Western philosophy is philosophy of science. Showing love for scientific wisdom, as is the usually ascribed meaning. The subject matter being science.
In short, western philosophy is a Grreek invention to separate the knowledge from the talking about it. A separation being present in western thought only.
Quoting Verdi
Quoting Verdi
You've addressed the issue by explaining why the issue doesn't really exist or isn't really important, which is a valid philosophical and rhetorical strategy. We know stuff and philosophy is just talking about the stuff we know. But we are playing the philosophy game here. Here on the forum we think philosophy exists and is important. We think it comes before knowledge, in a sense that it's more important than knowledge. More basic.
So I think you've got it backwards. First comes the world, then comes metaphysics, then comes knowledge. At least that's the hand we're playing here on the forum. That's the hand I'm playing.
Yeah, this backwardness is usually used in defensive rethorics. What's more fundamental, science or the talk about it? I make no distinction between the two though.
Philosophy and science form an inseparable whole. I don't know the word for that whole (naturalism?) but the both shape each other and to have a good understanding you need both. On their own they are empty talk.
An attitude found in the ultimate philosophical formal system known as mathematics. (inherited from the ancient Greek philosophers who started this trend, to be rediscovered in the Enlightement).Without physical knowledge, math becomes empty, fictious and abstract talk, but very enjoyable, and it has come a long way since Plato, the computer uncovering realms never before imaginable (though some mathematical geniuses might have done this).
Math is helpful in science, but it are the ideas, theories, models, that are just as important. And math certainly is not the language nature talks to us, let alone a universal language. If we ask a mathematically defined question then nature will answer back mathematically because we force it to in experiments. Just a philosophical thought. Just a hand I am playing.
Ok..., but... Somebody else pulled them apart and we're left here to deal with it. Again, the hand we're playing. Also, nothing is an "inseparable whole." In a sense, metaphysics is the process by which we divide the original, primordial inseparable whole, the Tao perhaps, into apples, electrons, and mutual funds.
Beyond which, I think the distinction between metaphysics and science is a useful one. If I'm going to use knowledge to make decisions about actions in the real world, I have to have a good idea of how much I can trust that knowledge. In order to do that, I need to establish and enforce rules for information gathering and processing. That's one of the things epistemology is.
Quoting T Clark
True. In ancient Greece they were torn apart and we're left with the mess. So, they are separable, and in that sense no unseparable whole. What I mean though is that the whole is a wholistic whole, to which qualities can be assigned not present in one of both. If I have two lighters of which one contains gas only but no brimstone, and the other vice-versa, I can't light my cigarette with either of them. But combined, I can light it up. Which raises the question if the whole is better, because cigarettes kill. Not being a health mafia member though, I stick to the lighter.
Quoting T Clark
It's the hand played on this forum. It's even called the philosophy forum. Why shouldn't there be a place for me? You don't say this directly, but I sense this from your wording, and that's all I can cling to. I don't deny philosophy or attack it, not at all. It's a pity though that no attempt is made to regain the connection with the stuff it talks about. Regaining the assembled whole doesn't destroy philosophy nor science. It merely brings to bear unimagined new qualities. Of the whole.
Quoting T Clark
It can be a usefull one. But for making the distinction what is metaphysics or physics, one needs to know both first, because the division can't be made if there is nothing to divide.
Quoting T Clark
In order to trust knowledge, you don't need epistemology. You need to know that that knowledge works out fine for you. Knowing about the knowledge involved, or the methodology one must use for approaching a problem will only paralyze you. You may claim that epistemology or methodology are exactly what philosophy is about, and that that's the stuff discussed here, but philosophy is not invented to restrict knowledge and its gathering. Philosophy is meant to set free from restrictions. Or at least to further scientific knowledge.
By this logic, we should go through the world not making distinctions. Not separating the whole into parts. But we do, and we can't not. I assume it's wired into the circuits at a very early stage of evolution. Might that lead to confusion and misdirection? It does all the time. It's a fundamental human intellectual foible. If you look too closely at the plants, you miss the ecology. If you look too closely at your face in the mirror, you don't notice your zipper is down.
Quoting Verdi
Of course there's a place for you on the forum. And there's a place for you in this discussion. I have bad news for you - Denial of the value of philosophy is a philosophical position. A claim that metaphysics is not needed is a metaphysical statement. You're trapped.
Beyond that, I think the philosophy/science distinction is a useful and important one. I've seen many discussions go haywire because participants fail to know which is which.
Quoting Verdi
I doubt that "no attempt is made to regain the connection with the stuff it talks about." When making distinctions, it's important to recognize the importance of putting the cuts in appropriate places and also to recognize when making distinctions does not clarify the situation. I think some of us here do that. You can make distinctions without loosing sight of the whole kit and caboodle.
Quoting Verdi
Agreed.
Quoting Verdi
I spent 30 years as an engineer understanding and using information, knowledge, in order to make decisions about actions in the real, expensive world. I have a strong understanding of how knowledge works at a very concrete level and how to use it to choose the right thing to do next. In engineering, data collection is sometimes separate from data validation, data processing, and data usage. Different people often do each of these separate tasks. It is the engineer's job to know how everything fits together and to see that it does.
So... Yes... Epistemology is real and important and the distinction between knowledge and epistemology is real and important.
Here you misunderstood what I read. I wrote you divisions are made. But what's divided should be kept also. It's the mutual interaction between the divisions, science and philosophy, that gives the quality absent from each apart. The fire that can only be produced by a lighter with gas only (science) and a lighter with a firestone only (philosophy). So you should divide but not tear apart.
Here I disagree.
I don't think I misunderstand, I disagree, at least in part.
First - Making distinctions can be misleading - agreed.
Second - Some distinctions, such as the one between philosophy and science, are important and useful.
Indeed. Like I said. But they mustn't be considered apart. Only in relation to the other. Torn apart, they become empty.
What can you offer to back that up against my testimony of 30 years of daily, nose to the grindstone, data collection, management, and use when I had to face the consequences of being wrong in very concrete, professional, financial, and personal terms. I know what it feels like to be wrong. I don't like it.
You don't think but you do. A philosophy can't exist on its own. Maybe for you, but then you misunderstand me.
It's no battle we are fighting. It's just how I view it. Epistemology, the knowledge about knowledge, inhibits knowledge.
Does this seem like a battle to you? I thought it was a discussion. I've been friendly and civil.
I just don't feel the need to back myself up. I don't mean you are not friendly or not civil. I just think epistemology has no place in philosophy. Like I said, I think knowledge about knowledge keeps one away from immersing oneself in knowledge. I like philosophizing about knowledge, but I don't need to know anything about it.
This conversation has been fun and interesting.
Philosophy makes explicit, or describes, the assumptions (confusions) of conceptual questions and/or hypothetical problems.
Philosophy of science also makes explicit, or describes, the limits of (commitments to) particular methods and practices – paradigms – used to organize, conduct and evaluate research into hypothetical problems (explaining how X transforms into Y)
Science consists of research that systematically proceeds by observationally clarifying (formulates) and then experimentally solving (tests) hypothetical problems (explaining how X transforms into Y).