philosophical knowledge?

"Principia Mathematica" by Russell,B. & A.N.Whitehead might be one of the most important works in philosophy-logic-mathematics in the last century. Later, Godel, based on this system, proved the theorem of imperfectness (undecidablity) of a system of axioms of mathematics which contains the system of natural numbers within the framework of the first order logic.

philosophy's value
I see philosophy broadly as more than a discipline developed to achieve specific ends. Its general end is to keep things in perspective, including the advances (and dangers) of science. Science does not examine the origin and role of values, the nature of truth-seeking, the point(s) of living, etc. It is simply a very efficient way to answer some kinds of questions (those that can be phrased as falsifiable hypotheses). The engineering consequences of science make it seem as though it were the supreme source of knowledge, but we must remember that science has no monopoly on knowledge. Knowledge can be ancient; science is relatively modern.

I think JLN touched on the difference between science and philosophy. Pure science does not concern ethics or morals. Philosophy, on the other hand, questions what is truth and value. It's not so much that science is modern, because scientific knowledge increases with time. We had to start with the wheel, then advance from there. Philosophy questions all of life. c.i.

truth
Lenglain defines science narrowly as that which has produced the fabulous engineering feats we enjoy today; C.I. seems to define it more broadly, perhaps as all truth seeking. I was going along with Lenglain's question and defining science as a modern phenomenon as opposed to the ancient discipline of philosophy. And, of course, the two might be seen as having been united in the past. And, we might acknowledge that science itself rests on philosophical/metaphysical assumptions. It is one of the roles of philosophy to examine and critique these assumptions, as a possible way of improving science.

It has been an aspect of history of human knowledge that science has developed with alchemy and astrology while philosopy has been with theology until very recent times. There is a difference in the style between the two.

I agree with JLN. Science is never "pure" because funding is subject to vested interests. There is an uneasy interplay at present between Science and Philosophy on the genetic front. And at the macro level "responsibility to future generations" is a major issue.

Perhaps the key problem in the question the word "knowledge" since the status of any "fact" is relative to the total social environment within which it arises.

"quality"

truth
Fresco!
Where have you been? Believe or not, this morning I was thinking of sending you a "pm" message to see why you havn't been participating (at least not that I could see). Now I've to find Twyvel.
Yes, Science is not the pure thing we like to think it is. Just consider Thomas Kuhn (not to mention many other writers) on the political nature of "official" truth seeking. Your epistemological remark about the problematical nature of the status of the fact itself is well taken. Facts, as I like to say, are "little theories". Their appearance of solidity rests on unquestioned assumptions which are the purview of philosophy. "Facts" are USEFUL for a time, but that is not to say they are windows on Reality. They may be considered heuristic fictions of the culture, fictions which have a temporary pragmatic value. And that is not to be minimized: this (and the great theoretical models OF THE DAY) may be the most we can expect from philosophy or science.

Philosophy is "the love of knowledge", literally; and as such the discipline documents the thinking of some of the great minds of world history (the published ones).
Science is virtually the same thing, both are seeking out details of the nature of the universe in which we exist, but science puts the emphasis on the concrete, rather than the esoteric.

Without both, neither would be of any use!

Science and philosophy is a marriage. c.i.

C.I. could we please say "partnership" and avoid any potential missconceptions.

BGW, I intentionally used "marriage," because there will always exist the arguments from both sides as to 'who is right.'

science
C.I., I showed your last comment to my wife, and we had great

Gee C.I.; I hate it when you are right

BGW, Not to worry; I'm wrong enough times to scare crows. c.i.

i see ur name is Lenglain what is yout first name....i am a lenglain too lol

Karl Popper's critical rationalism is the first thing that came to my mind as a major contribution to knowledge, including scientific knowledge.

I think you are neglecting whole rafts of philosophy: Jean paul Sartre and Existentialism. Wittgenstein. Simone de Beauvoir and feminism. Nietsche. Marxism in its various forms. Eastern Philosophy and the hippy gurus. Possibly they were recycling old knowledge. Occultism of Crowley. New "religions" like scientology. Charlie Manson and the family. The qaballah going mainstream. New Agism. I think the most important of these was the introduction of women into the previously male discipline. Kuhn and paradigms.

How wonderful. I've received an "UPDATE" for this thread. We are back on track.