Science vs Philosophy

[Floyd]

Cheers for mentioning that book, I had looked at buying that before after someone else mentioning it in another thread some time ago, I think it cost over £40 last time I looked though

It was a recomendation to a post i had made pondered the questions. "where is the universe?" and the idea that the closer we

Look, the smaller things get until they start hiding, and the further away we look, the smaller we get and the bigger things get, we could all be inside someone's nose for instance.

Then take M Theory for instance with it's 11 dimensions... It's all getting weirder and weirder

What is this, what is the underlying consciousness that runs the universe, grows our hair, beats our heat, shapes our bones,

our trees and flowers, how does an apple know how to grow on an apple tree and not a pear one, what are we not seeing with the tiny array of sensory equipment we are kitted out with.

[Flobalobalobalot]

"what are we not seeing with the tiny array of sensory equipment we are kitted out with."

Floyd .. . everything which has not yet been made available to the individuals awareness. . . which is potentially infinite ..

a given state of awareness is 'loaded' at the precise intended instant .. . ....'synchronicity', amongst other modes, clearly reveals so . .

.. & also reveals that the supposide 'five senses' DO NOT sense some external reality. . .but rather, seemingly provide an illusory reality that befits the current awareness & teaching.

~loba~

[troy]

Philosophy is about ideas and critical thinking I would say whereas science is more about observation and experimentation.

Edited March 3, 2013 by troy

[Eddiesilence]

Richard Feynmann saw philosophy as the vital fundament of science, and lamented the abandonment of philosophy in education. His view was that there is no separation between science and philosophy. It's not just that they are intrinsically interlinked, or even that they are co-dependant - sometimes the science is the same thing as the philosophy. The idea of a contest between philosophy and science, is like blueprints and bricks locked in battle against buildings.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Eddiesilence

[Sasquatch]

I think it cost over £40 last time I looked though

Now available for under a tenner.

[Floyd]

The only difference I personally come to is that philosophy can take you on a further journey inwards perhaps by the questions and thought process in relation to those questions. Whereas Science is more external to all those other than the ones doing the exploring, although I can learn all about my body in a scientific perspective, it is not my perspective.

Science could discover the meaning of life tomorrow and broadcast it to the world, but really it would be words describing the findings, explanation and discovery.

It would feel cold I would imaging, like, "oh!, well that is that then." Accepting it as I would, just as I accept other current theories, I feel it would sink in just as any other scientific

discoveries I read about.

but they are one, one fuels the other and vs versa

eta:

For me it is like being described a beautiful Vista, and discovering it by myself.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Floyd

[strawberry]

Richard Feynmann saw philosophy as the vital fundament of science....

That reminds me of a bird that was really into ornithology....

[Boojum]

Science, before it was called science, was called natural philosophy.

Science is, perhaps, the practical application of philosophy

[Floyd]

Science, before it was called science, was called natural philosophy.

Science is, perhaps, the practical application of philosophy

I had thought (presumably wrong now) that natural philosophy was what is now called metaphysics or had been a branch of that tree.

That's an interesting way of putting it Boojum and one I couldn't disagree with...

Say they both being with a question, a hunger for an answer...

I think philosophy is more accessible to everyone, there is nothing difficult about it, we are equipped with all the tools we need from birth, whereas science although beings as a hunger for answers, it could be classed as a career in a sense, that you need investment, funding, labs, machines, tools etc... to take part in it.

You had mentioned that you, like myself enjoy some of the philosophies of the East...

Are there aspects of that philosophy that you feel would not benefit from science being called in to define it or would you like your philosophy defined by science or even feel you need it defined?

Edited March 4, 2013 by Floyd

[Flobalobalobalot]

Scientist .. . or Philosopher ? .. inventer, thinker .. or receiver ?

"The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and uninterrupted solitude. No big laboratory is needed in which to think. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone, that is the secret of invention; be alone, that is when ideas are born." ~Nikola Tesla.

"Like a flash of lightning and in an instant the truth was revealed. I drew with a stick on the sand the diagrams of my motor. A thousand secrets of nature which I might have stumbled upon accidentally I would have given for that one which I had wrestled from her against all odds and at the peril of my existence." ~Nikola Tesla.

"I was not merely beholding a vision, but had caught sight of a great and profound truth." ~Nikola Tesla.

-Talking with the Planets- (Collier's Weekly, February 9, 1901)

"Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run my machine in my mind or test it in my shop. The inventions I have conceived in this way have always worked. In thirty years there has not been a single exception. My first electric motor, the vacuum wireless light, my turbine engine and many other devices have all been developed in exactly this way." ~Nikola Tesla.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success....Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." ~Nikola Tesla.

"It was the artist, too, who awakened that broad philanthropic spirit which, even in old ages, shone in the teachings of noble reformers and philosophers, that spirit which makes men in all departments and positions work not as much for any material benefit or compensation -- though reason may command this also -- but chiefly for the sake of success, for the pleasure there is in achieving it and for the good they might be able to do thereby to their fellow-men. Through his influence types of men are now pressing forward, impelled by a deep love for their study, men who are doing wonders in their respective branches, whose chief aim and enjoyment is the acquisition and spread of knowledge, men who look far above earthly things, whose banner is Excelsior! Gentlemen, let us honor the artist; let us thank him, let us drink his health!" ~Nikola Tesla.

"A single ray of light from a distant star falling upon the eye of a tyrant in bygone times, may have altered the course of his life, may have changed the destiny of nations, may have transformed the surface of the globe, so intricate, so inconceivably complex are the processes of nature." ~Nikola Tesla

"Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them." ~Nikola Tesla.

-The Problem of Increasing Human Energy- (The Century Magazine, June, 1900)...

[Boojum]

I had thought (presumably wrong now) that natural philosophy was what is now called metaphysics or had been a branch of that tree.

Back before there was 'science' it was all the same - I'm kinda talking about the western philosophical & scientific tradition here - philosophy, 'natural philosphy', metaphysics - it was kinda all the same - alchemy too (which is basically the forefather of modern chemistry, but it was a metaphysical thing when John Dee & the like were doing it).

I think it's all a desire to (even a compulsion to, perhaps) understand the world. The only difference between science and philosophy to me is that philosophy has the theoretical ideas, and then science tests them - that's all science is, it gets misunderstood and misrepresented but all science is is taking a theory (philosophy, perhaps - coming up with the theory) and testing it.

[Flobalobalobalot]

"philosophy has the theoretical ideas, and then science tests them"

"Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run my machine in my mind or test it in my shop. The inventions I have conceived in this way have always worked. In thirty years there has not been a single exception. My first electric motor, the vacuum wireless light, my turbine engine and many other devices have all been developed in exactly this way." ~Nikola Tesla.

[Boojum]

"philosophy has the theoretical ideas, and then science tests them"

"Before I put a sketch on paper, the whole idea is worked out mentally. In my mind I change the construction, make improvements, and even operate the device. Without ever having drawn a sketch I can give the measurements of all parts to workmen, and when completed all these parts will fit, just as certainly as though I had made the actual drawings. It is immaterial to me whether I run my machine in my mind or test it in my shop. The inventions I have conceived in this way have always worked. In thirty years there has not been a single exception. My first electric motor, the vacuum wireless light, my turbine engine and many other devices have all been developed in exactly this way." ~Nikola Tesla.

That's genius, though (Tesla was IMHO a genius) and genius doesn't really conform to the rules of the rest of us.

Science kinda has a bad reputation (how mad a sentence it that ? ), but it's cos of the misunderstanding (and misrepresentation) of what science actually is.

Science is just testing a theory until it's been tested enough to accept it as the best understanding we currently have.

[strawberry]

...The only difference between science and philosophy to me is that philosophy has the theoretical ideas, and then science tests them - that's all science is, it gets misunderstood and misrepresented but all science is is taking a theory (philosophy, perhaps - coming up with the theory) and testing it.

I don't think science is testing ideas generated by philosophy. The idea of science being a mechanical process is wrong; science isn't simply a case of making observations and drawing lines between points on a graph. There is an enormous amount of creative thinking in science, and I think this is because its crazy ideas can be tested. For example, in the early 20th Century the likes of Dirac and Heisenberg had ideas very different from those of the old school views of Einstein et al, and their ideas held their ground because they were tested and were a better fit for the results. It's difficult for philosophy to have the same shift in ideas because it cannot be directly tested. Both the scientist and the philosopher can let their imagination run wild, but the scientist has more concrete means to judge their thoughts. It's much easier for the scientist to see the emperor is wearing no clothes than it is for the philosopher.

Eddie, can you point me in the direction of that take on Feynman's opinion? I must admit, if I were asked to name one scientist who held philosophy in a dim light, I'd name Feynman. I hinted at his famous quote, "[The] Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds". I was always a fan of Feynman as a kid, and I always remember his saying, "science doesn't care why".

[strawberry]

...you can't put Descartes before the whores...

Ignoring the Cartesian issue of reality, is there any real disparity other than philosophy's clinging on to ex nihilo nihil fit?