Floyd Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 Ignoring the Cartesian issue of reality, is there any real disparity other than philosophy's clinging on to ex nihilo nihil fit? What about, you can't have something without nothing, or if you have something you can't have nothing. To know what something is, nothing must exist also? Just as front goes with back and black defines white etc... Cheers for sharing your thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 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. I think that both the scientist and the philosopher are, ultimately, asking the same questions - how ? why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) As much as I enjoy and am intregueed by science, it goes to far in some respects for me... some areas have become as if man knows better than the natural nature of things... Is it one thing to test, explore and define on one hand and change, alter and modify on the other? Is science still science ones the later comes into play? The why becomes what it is, then it becomes something else. Edited March 5, 2013 by Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 I did a genetics degree (my first degree was genetics and biochemistry) but I became very uncomfortable with where genetics is going - there's kinda a lot of "we can." without thinking about if we should. If that makes any sense at all (probably not) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) I did a genetics degree (my first degree was genetics and biochemistry) but I became very uncomfortable with where genetics is going - there's kinda a lot of "we can." without thinking about if we should. If that makes any sense at all (probably not) It makes sense mate, just what I was getting at Eta: Take something even simpler such as a table, it's really just a word, a definition. It's a table, sit on it and it becomes a chair, break it up and it's fire wood, heat. Look closely and it's atoms, look closer and you can't see anything at all That's just a table, but we modify food to eat, split atoms for war and so on.. Edited March 5, 2013 by Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 What about, you can't have something without nothing, or if you have something you can't have nothing. To know what something is, nothing must exist also? Just as front goes with back and black defines white etc... Ex nihilo nihil fit refers to the problem of a universe born from nothing. Physics supports the view that something can come from nothing, but philosophy doesn't seem to have the constructs to do so. It seems to me to be the big separation between the two. (Although the issue is very cloudy as a result of the religious connotations of the argument.) ... in order to advance in science, we will have to start looking at things from new perspective, eventually out with the restraints of the perceived laws already assumed.... Science changes quite significantly with new data (consider QM, relativity etc), but isn't philosophy limited by not being testable? How do you determine that philosophy isn't just a house of cards formed from seemingly logical steps that ultimately miss the goal? btw Which laws do you think are assumed? Are you making a case against empirical evidence? I think that both the scientist and the philosopher are, ultimately, asking the same questions - how ? why ? Perhaps my view is coloured by my particular field, but I see a separation here; science deals with the how, and philosophy the why. There's some semantic blurring as for example, I don't think 'why do some unstable nuclei eject neutrons' is really a 'why' question. In general I don't have a problem with society providing an external mechanism for ethical guidance of science. But, a lot of what I see called 'ethical debate' appears to me nothing more than governments and big companies justifying their own ends in the face of scientific evidence not supporting them. (eg Jacqui Smith vs cannabis, big pharma vs our health etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted March 5, 2013 Author Share Posted March 5, 2013 (edited) Ex nihilo nihil fit refers to the problem of a universe born from nothing. Physics supports the view that something can come from nothing, but philosophy doesn't seem to have the constructs to do so. It seems to me to be the big separation between the two. (Although the issue is very cloudy as a result of the religious connotations of the argument.) Science changes quite significantly with new data (consider QM, relativity etc), but isn't philosophy limited by not being testable? How do you determine that philosophy isn't just a house of cards formed from seemingly logical steps that ultimately miss the goal? btw Which laws do you think are assumed? Are you making a case against empirical evidence? Rather than assumed, I would have been better to say agreed upon, I am not trying to create a case against or for anything, rather further my understanding of my point of view and as a result of that... other people's views and undstandings and a bit of philosophical and scientific history by discussion. I had thought at the time or replying to you that I may have misunderstood the question you posed which again was... Is there any real disparity other than philosophy's clinging on to ex nihilo nihil fit? I was explaining my position whitch is not clinging on to ex nihilo nihil fit. But as I have the wrong end of the stick, could you rephrase your question perhaps? Edited March 5, 2013 by Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strawberry Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 But as I have the wrong end of the stick, could you explain or rephrase your question? It was in relation to the thread title, "science vs philosophy". I was asking if there really is much of a disagreement between the two, other than in relation to the issue of a universe from nothing (ignoring the issue of objective/subjective reality). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 should be science versus spirituality then you would get some feedback...you big monkey you:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
groovelick Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Philosophy getting a truth through reason, Science getting at a truth through observation. Or maybe science is just practical philosophy Kinda works for me. Edited March 9, 2013 by groovelick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bazzad9 Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 should be science versus spirituality then you would get some feedback...you big monkey you:) You would need to define spirituality first , what does it actually mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolz Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Science contains inherent contradictions being based on the age of reason, and more significantly how humans at this period started to experience and treat "un-reason". In my view alot of science is naval gazing nonsense, it proclaims great advances for humankind, but really it's great advances that the majority of humankind never know about, and the vast majority of "developed nations" couldn't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bazzad9 Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Science contains inherent contradictions being based on the age of reason, and more significantly how humans at this period started to experience and treat "un-reason". In my view alot of science is naval gazing nonsense, it proclaims great advances for humankind, but really it's great advances that the majority of humankind never know about, and the vast majority of "developed nations" couldn't understand. I would agree some research seems pointless and its easy to think "what the hell use is this " But it does eventually trickle down to something usefull , not always what the original research intended We have had lots of usefull things come out of "blue sky research " 100 years ago your post on the internet would seem absoloutly amazing , born in 1990 its just normal , nothing special Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolz Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) And proportionately maybe more people die in poverty now than did 100years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if there are still humans in the world, maybe even the UK, definitely america who still don't understand the concept or workings of the internet, knowledge is not more widespread, it is for some people a small minority, the masses get as you say the trickle down of commodities to buy. Edited March 9, 2013 by lolz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bazzad9 Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 And proportionately maybe more people die in poverty now than did 100years ago. Be that true or not it says nothing on the validity of the scientific method America is the richest nation in the world , and one of the most reliogious , no free healthcare , plenty of poverty , more empty homes than homeless people Is that science or religion ?.......or neither , its humans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now