|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Philosophers Vs. Scientists
#12064026 - 02/20/10 06:06 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Philosophers search for infallible truths, while scientists seach for fallible ones.
Discuss.
--------------------
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: Noteworthy]
#12064042 - 02/20/10 06:20 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Some philosophers and some scientists, sure. For instance, how do deconstructionists fit into this?
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,177
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: Lakefingers]
#12074021 - 02/21/10 09:17 PM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
what about the merits of undecidability
-------------------- _ 🧠_
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Good science is poetry which is good philosophy.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Lakefingers
Registered: 08/26/05
Posts: 6,440
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: what about the merits of undecidability
Is not philosophy or science, apparently.
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: Lakefingers]
#12075734 - 02/22/10 08:07 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
even though philosophers and scientists reach for the truth, this does not mean they get it. Nor does it mean that they perservere. Sometimes philosophers give up on a topic of philosophy for pragmatic reasons.
Undecideability is special because people can be decided about their undecideability. Someone can make the philosophical justification for accepting undecideability. OR someone can emotionally be undecided and give up on that line of inquiry. In something like quantum physics, particles have probabilities, but their probabilities themselves are not just probable, they are calculated to very high standards and measured to a high accuracy.
Science was originally an aspect of philosophy. It branched off from philosophy because it applied itself purely to empirical data. the scientific method stresses falsifiability in its description of the data.
Other domains of philsophy dealt with a-priori truths. Philosophy generally discusses the a-priori realm, the realm of ideals, in the spirit of plato, even if aristotle's world view is more dominant. Much modern philosophy involves men describing ideals in a way that makes an elegant picture and adresses popular academic questions of the time.
The meat of philosophy is in argument (isolating contradictions - apriori distruths) and the meat of science is in exploration (of the observable universe)
And I think a good way to quickly distinguish the realm of philosophy from science is that philosophy deals with the apriori relationships (the validity of ideas) while science strives to find out which valid ideas are most likely to be true of our physical world (the soundness of ideas).
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: Noteworthy]
#12076123 - 02/22/10 10:03 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Noteworthy said: Other domains of philsophy dealt with a-priori truths.
Ain't no such thing.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
Grapefruit
Freak in the forest
Registered: 05/09/08
Posts: 5,744
Last seen: 3 years, 3 months
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: deCypher]
#12076212 - 02/22/10 10:27 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You need evidence in philosophy.
Philosophy is really just searching for a different thing than science and therefore uses different methods. These methods are the best way of finding the closest thing to philosophical truth.
Completely different ballparks, there is no "vs".
-------------------- Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. "Chat your fraff Chat your fraff Just chat your fraff Chat your fraff"
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: Grapefruit]
#12076414 - 02/22/10 11:14 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
evidence? in philosophy? I don't think so. unless it is a matter of trying to get your philosophy heard/published - in that case you might show evidence that some problem exists that needs fixing. Or alternatively you might give an example. examples are not 'evidence', they can be true or false, and merely serve to allow a person to apprehend a concept, activating the structure of this concept in their short term memory.
--------------------
|
Noteworthy
Sophyphile
Registered: 10/05/08
Posts: 5,599
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: deCypher]
#12181073 - 03/11/10 12:22 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deCypher said:
Quote:
Noteworthy said: Other domains of philsophy dealt with a-priori truths.
Ain't no such thing.
Are you suggesting that there are no a-priori truths?
--------------------
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
Re: Philosophers Vs. Scientists [Re: Noteworthy]
#12181077 - 03/11/10 12:24 AM (14 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I am suggesting that the distinction between a-priori and a-posteriori is invalid because all a-priori 'truths' require a certain context in order to be true. This context is also what determines the truth of a-posteriori truths.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
|
|