Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:03 pm
Philosophy and science has always been working side by side, and they will always be. Sometimes philosophy precedes science to be followed by science to prove it, and sometimes science precedes philosophy to be followed by philosophy to analyze it and connect it to what we already know.
A scientist is actually two things: a scientist and a philosopher. He first thinks and assumes, then goes to test his assumptions and experiment. The experiment may result into something he didn’t think of, so he starts thinking philosophically about it, and then goes back to science for confirmation. Thus, there is an ongoing dialectic between science and philosophy till they match and conform, and then it become a reasonable scientific fact.
So, we can’t segregate science from philosophy, because they both integrate in the mind. There is no science without a mind, and no philosophy without a mind, therefore no science without philosophy and no philosophy without science.
Materialists may be speaking about the ontological and theoretical fields of study that revolve around man when they say that philosophy has weakened or died. But that doesn’t mean that philosophy itself is weakened, because most of the scientific discourse now is scientific theories. A theory is a theoretical approach towards a certain subject, and theoretical approaches are called philosophy! In other words, philosophy has been removed a little from newspapers and books to get into the field of science. And we are in the age of theories, because the abundance of theories we see now is unprecedented in the past centuries. This means that philosophy has moved into the field of science. Thus, I believe it’s false to separate science from philosophy.
The word philosophy doesn’t only mean exploring the issues of good and bad, morality, society and religion. Philosophy has a wider meaning; it includes interpreting the universe, the beginning of the universe, the emergence of life and many other fields of study that science is concerned with. That is why we have the evolution theory, accelerating universe, multiverse theories, quantum theory and a lot more. Those are nothing but philosophies that aren’t yet scientifically proven conclusively to be called science.
Consequently, people who talked about the death of philosophy have actually stolen it and called instead: science, to delude people into accepting their philosophy as science. The scientific theory is a philosophy but in the fields of matter not humanity, that’s all there is to it.
Science itself is stolen. The materialist philosophy stole it along with philosophy to prove its ideologies. Materialists say that philosophy is dead, while they use it and rely on it but after they cover it with a scientific coat. They do that so that people will not discuss and scrutinize their philosophies …scientific theories". Also, by arguing the death of philosophy, they aim to remove people from thinking, because there is no need to think, i.e. philosophize, when you have science.
The philosophers of nature before Socrates are a good example for philosophy in the realm of matter, like when Democritus thought that everything in the universe is composed of atoms. Socrates had turned the attention of philosophy to problems of man and society, and it stayed that way. And materialists have brought philosophy to study matter again. The materialist philosophy has brought philosophy back to matter to prove its ideas and atheistic view.
Whoever belittles philosophy will necessarily belittle logic. And whoever belittles logic is belittling the mind. And that is what the materialistic philosophy wants, to be accepted without reason, because reason opposes it a lot. Thus, whoever preaches the death of philosophy wants to end thinking and oppress its freedom, arguing that we have science so no need for your efforts. While science is actually stolen and subjected to propaganda.
Discussions about death of philosophy has been going along for a long time. And I believe the ideas presented by your post are quite interesting. Turning our attention to the motives behind announcing the death of philosophy is a good key to understand the claim itself. Also, your argument of the impossibility of separating science from philosophy is quite valid.
Wasn't it Aristotle who maintained that since the death of his teacher, Plato, philosophy was on its last legs? (Excepting his own self, of couurse.)
Philosophy has died a thousand deaths already.
100,000 years ago:
Ugga or Caveman 1: Philosophy is dead.
Groogo or Caveman 2: What is philosophy?
Caveman 1: Philosophy is search for truth. Like meaning of beauty or life....
Caveman 2: (((eyes roll up in frustration, annoyance, and sheer boredom)))
Shut up please Ugga. Sorry Groogo asked.
Caveman 1: Philosophy is search for reasons of existence and nothingness.
[Caveman 2 swings his club striking caveman 1 repeatedly on the head until caveman 1's brains are all over the floor and he is definitely dead.]
Caveman 2: Groogo thank the sky god that philosophy is finally dead. Ugga give Groogo headache with annoying and useless nonsense.
Excellent topic and welcome to A2K. Have you read Karl Popper? Much of his writings deal with the demarcation of science and metaphysics. Popper defined how science is done but he also championed the usefulness of metaphysics. Popper believed metaphysics determines what questions scientists should ask and even determines what a satisfactory answer would look like.
Popper says that all science is based on probabilities, do you think that’s true especially with the use of “all”? In mathematics even the theory of probability is based on laws, and laws are constant, so is it possible that all science is based on probabilities? Why did he generalized that to all science? Is there a probability that the outcome of 1+1 will not be 2? Will it be 2.5 or 2.75 maybe?
We should understand the reasons behind all this skepticism in science and its constants. And I think it’s because they want to pave the way for accepting theories the same way science is accepted, because theories are what is truly based on probability. Also, what’s the deal with all this enthusiasm for theories? That is the question. The motive is ideological rather than scientific. Because all these theories are interpretive and provide answers for the difficult questions in order to take the place of religion, thus it will lose its value as they think. They want it to be said that science has answered all the questions, even though it didn’t.
This is my analysis, and I respect your opinion and appreciate that you are the first member to welcome me in this forum. And I wish you accept my friendship.
A flower for you.
Yes, welcome! (I'm the second).
Welcome to A2K,
The pragmatists (Rorty etc) do
attempt to separate science from philosophy by stating that knowledge , including "scientific knowledge" is about "what works".But that pragmatic statement is itself transcendent of traditional epistemology and can therefore be rightly called "philosophy". We can attempt ask "why things ultimately
work" which is a question correctly called "philosophy" by those scientists sceptical of the quest for a TOE (theory of everything). The dissenters from a TOE notably include Steven Hawking who cites that Godel's incompleteness theorem implies that there are no fundamental
axioms (materialist or otherwise) for which independent (non pragmatic) "truth" can be established.
However, we should also consider the recent claims of so called "cognitive science", which allow for "mind" to be an intricate part of "bodily interaction with the world". Such a view is called "embodied cognition", yet according to followers like Varela, it still leaves open options like the inclusion of "holistic consciousness" in such an analysis.