|
82abhilash (August 28, 2008 at 4:57 pm)
I do not think we disagree on much here. But I feel philosophy more like a shadow to science. Shadow is like companion to its objects but unlike a companion, cannot be separated from it. Yet it is not embedded in it and once again just like the shadow, it need not be there all the time in all conditions. I feel that metaphor is more appropriate. And perhaps that metaphor explains the relation between math and science as well.
Stevehtegreatgr (August 28, 2008 at 5:20 am)
I don't think that philosophy ought to be a companion of science, rather than an embedded feature of it. The last two centuries' philosophy is a mess, it has been tramped by the clarity that science gave to things. I don't think that philosophy should be a field of it's own rather than become a feature of other fields (asking the right questions is useful everywhere and one to be trained to do so). Philosophy used to be the term for intellectualism, we don't need it anymore.....
Stevehtegreatgr (August 28, 2008 at 5:17 am)
If we understand the universality of ethics (as we did with math) then we would be able to employ some real research on the field and actually being able to build societies, not on the principle of the blind watchmaker (our evolved, intuitive ethics) but on the results of rigorous study and necessary logical outcomes.
Stevehtegreatgr (August 28, 2008 at 5:16 am)
There is no reason for ethics to be a realm of philosophy. Math also used to be a realm of philosophy and look where it got us when it got a life of its own. We discount ethics for being a kind of obscurantism that philosophers employ in the same way of how people though of math 2000 years ago (a neat trick but not especially useful).
82abhilash (August 28, 2008 at 4:19 am)
Philosophy can be a good companion for science, but it can also be a good companion for economic and law. And data gathering can too can be used to support non-scientific ventures like market research or voter registration. As for ethics, that is mostly in the realm of philosophy, although I feel this subject too can be informed by knowledge from other disciplines.
82abhilash (August 28, 2008 at 4:12 am)
Science is not philosophy and philosophy is not science. Maybe they share a common ancestor. Gathering data, that is more like statistics. Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for the world we are in. Before we can explain something we need to think, so philosophy comes into picture. We need data to base our thinking and give explanations. So statistics contribute to scientific understanding as does philosophy, yet they remain separate disciplines in their own right.
Stevehtegreatgr (August 27, 2008 at 5:01 am)
We need strong philosophy for the same reason ancient scientists needed it, to make sense of the world. Indeed the data tell nothing about how the world is made, while at the same time we left the other field of universal values (other than mathematics), ethics, largely undeveloped the last 2000 years. It's a shame, really that Aristotle can be ethically current while his science is already vastly outdated. An ethical science can help us as much as math did, we better get our act together.
Stevehtegreatgr (August 27, 2008 at 4:57 am)
Philosophy is the search for knowledge. As such science is a form of philosophy, in fact until the first half of 19th century Science was named "Natural Philosophy". It's a shame really due to the influence of platonic idealism, the modern kinds of Scepticism (existentialism at first and post-modernism after that) philosophy lost all its coins to the point to be referred as "bad science" in our days. It's time to put philosophy back in its tracks and drive it away from any kind of menticide.
TheReasonWhyGuy (July 21, 2008 at 3:37 pm)
Wow I have to agree, well said :D
82abhilash (June 18, 2008 at 11:22 pm)
That must probably be the most sensible things I have ever heard anyone say on YouTube. |
