Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

[Happy Skeptic wrote:]
If the world included magic, science would be able to study it.  If it included miracles, science would be able to identify them and categorize under what conditions they happened, and create hypotheses about what might induce another "miracle" to happen.

[and you agreed:]

most of us are not philosophers at all [...] keep asking for evidence rather than one argument piled on top of another.

Here you show that although you are not a philosopher, you are still committed to metaphysical naturalism. 

Because when you ask for evidence, you are asking for the kind of thing that science would be able to study. And if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

[Alan V]

There is no versus, and no one is holding scientists accountable to philosophers. But when you want to debate the philosophy of science, you have to do philosophy. You cannot justify science without adhering to some philosophical worldview (whatever it may be).

Well, one specific theist arguing over at Atheist Discussion thought that scientists were accountable to philosophers, and I have heard similar arguments from others. However, I agree with you that they aren't.

Is being pragmatic really considered a philosophy, or is it just common sense now? My argument is that what was once a matter for philosophy is no longer, both in science and in the philosophical origins of science, because both have developed so much since their origins. Kind of like how I am a different person than my grandfather.

And if "scientists can do their own philosophy", then this doesn't sound like philosophy is in opposition to science. And for the record, I don't accept that scientists are doing their own philosophy in the sense that they are doing a kind of philosophy that philosophers don't get to do. Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. There is no such thing as "scientist-only philosophy".

Scientists now have the advantage of doing their own philosophy which is based on the insider knowledge of the tools and the mathematics which only they can follow in detail.

Maybe, but this wouldn't discredit philosophy anyway. Because even methodological naturalism is a philosophical position. And still warrants justification in certain debates to do with evidence and epistemology.

Methodological naturalism was, to my mind, adopted as a pragmatic means of tackling scientific problems by restricting research to the most likely possibilities. It has been very successful by doing so. As HappySkeptic mentioned above, that doesn't prevent scientists from assessing religious claims in terms of evidence, or prevent religious people from trying to insert their beliefs into scientific discoveries.

[Alan V]

[Happy Skeptic wrote:]
If the world included magic, science would be able to study it.  If it included miracles, science would be able to identify them and categorize under what conditions they happened, and create hypotheses about what might induce another "miracle" to happen.

[and you agreed:]

most of us are not philosophers at all [...] keep asking for evidence rather than one argument piled on top of another.

Here you show that although you are not a philosopher, you are still committed to metaphysical naturalism. 

Because when you ask for evidence, you are asking for the kind of thing that science would be able to study. And if it's something that science can't study, you don't consider it to be evidence.

There is all sorts of evidence that scientists would like access to, but which is beyond their ability to access.  They may speculate about it, but they don't jump to conclusions about what it must be, like religious people and philosophers tend to do.  They wait for evidence, and perhaps that evidence will never be forthcoming.  

Metaphysical naturalists jump to the conclusion that the world is nothing but material, and I am sure some atheists are metaphysical naturalists who are therefore required to explain themselves by philosophical means.  

As an intellectual minimalist, all I have to say in contrast is that the probabilities look heavily slanted against certain kinds of evidence for supernatural forces ever being accessed.  That allows me to embrace a materialistic worldview until it is shown to be inadequate.  I don't need to jump to any conclusions if I go by probabilities.

[Alan V]

scientists can do their own philosophy when necessary to develop their hypotheses.

Can you give me an example of a scientist doing this? I don't understand how it would work.

Philosophical methods are often about challenging assumptions so people can assess new possibilities.  The great scientific thinkers were able to do that, people like Einstein who challenged traditional notions of time and space.

In the book The Origin of Time, the author Thomas Hertog described how Stephen Hawking challenged certain scientific assumptions in his later work.  For instance, Hawking thought that too many scientists were committed to the idea that the laws of physics existed somehow beyond our specific universe, similar to how Plato conceived of them.  He didn't like how that idea led to multiverse cosmology, which he considered unscientific because it was too speculative.  He was trying to understand how the laws of the universe could have evolved within the first split second of the big bang, when the range of temperatures may have been wide enough to enable such an evolution.

Anyhow, that is one example, and perhaps a good one considering that you would have to be another scientist to understand such a line of thinking in detail.  Although the book simplifies a lot for a lay audience, much is still based on mathematics and cutting edge discoveries.

[GrandizerII]

Well, one specific theist arguing over at Atheist Discussion thought that scientists were accountable to philosophers, and I have heard similar arguments from others.  However, I agree with you that they aren't.

I have never heard a theist make such an argument, and I don't know what that person said exactly. If some theists really are saying that scientists are accountable to philosophers, then that's an arrogant thing to say.

Is being pragmatic really considered a philosophy, or is it just common sense now?

The decision to opt for something pragmatic like methodological naturalism is rooted in philosophy, and it espouses some type of epistemology (which is philosophy).

My argument is that what was once a matter for philosophy is no longer, both in science and in the philosophical origins of science, because both have developed so much since their origins.  Kind of like how I am a different person than my grandfather.

Philosophy has never meant something historical, though. Do you not think (for example) that philosophy of science is philosophy?

Scientists now have the advantage of doing their own philosophy which is based on the insider knowledge of the tools and the mathematics which only they can follow in detail.

Philosophers can also have that same advantage, you know. Obviously, you need to be familiar with the science and mathematics, but that is not something only scientists can do.

Do you think philosophical papers/debates on the nature of time (for example) have not ever referenced Einsteinian relativity? Or that no philosopher has examined the implications of various interpretations of quantum mechanics? Or that they have not examined mathematics ever in an attempt to get at the root of the concept of infinity? etc.

It's not that philosophers can't have access to, or aren't able to reason about, things that are strictly scientific or mathematical. It's that it's not their primary job to be doing the actual science or math. That's what scientists and mathematicians are for.

Methodological naturalism was, to my mind, adopted as a pragmatic means of tackling scientific problems by restricting research to the most likely possibilities.  It has been very successful by doing so.

Do you think restricting research to the most likely possibilities does not require any justification and is not based on any kind of philosophy?

And what does it mean for possibilities to be "most likely"? Sounds like some type of philosophy is required here also.

As HappySkeptic mentioned above, that doesn't prevent scientists from assessing religious claims in terms of evidence, or prevent religious people from trying to insert their beliefs into scientific discoveries.

When we're assessing religious claims in terms of evidence, we do so in line with criteria that are rooted in some type of philosophy.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When philosophy starts coming up with solutions to the problems of humanity, I'll start paying more attention to what philosophers have to say.

Boru

[Alan V]

I have never heard a theist make such an argument, and I don't know what that person said exactly. If some theists really are saying that scientists are accountable to philosophers, then that's an arrogant thing to say.

Some theists argue that way because they are trying to ignore the whole question of evidence. If they can draw atheists into purely philosophical discussions, they are on much more equal footing. That strategy isn't an accident.

Without addressing you point by point, I would like to say, in general, that there is no doubt that certain schools of philosophy are embedded in the genetics of science. However, those are the varieties of philosophy which have proven productive in terms of testable results. There are right answers, as it turns out. So scientists have no need to go back.

Socrates is famous for saying something like "I know that I know nothing." The problem is that certain philosophers still seem to think that some sort of absolute knowledge is possible. Science has shown that we humans can know a lot of different things we once only dreamed of understanding. But science changed the definition of knowledge in the process of learning, away from certain philosophical hopes of what was possible.

Looking at results, I think we have to credit the pragmatists. Unless there is some crisis in the sciences, other than aggressive ignorance, there is no reason to question or abandon what has worked in the past. We may not ever know everything we might like, but we will be protected from jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

[Belacqua]

The problem is that certain philosophers still seem to think that some sort of absolute knowledge is possible.  

Which philosophers are these?

But science changed the definition of knowledge in the process of learning, away from certain philosophical hopes of what was possible.

Scientists address certain kinds of questions. 

Scientists cannot answer the question "what is a good life?" The fact that philosophy cannot find a definitive answer to this question is not a reason to stop asking it. And philosophers who address this question are certainly not expecting to find "absolute knowledge." 

It is a mistake to ask of philosophers that they provide the kind of empirical, testable, quantifiable results that scientists work for. For some people it has become an ideological issue: they think that if someone writes a book that comes to conclusions which can't be scientifically tested, or doesn't allow us to make money or solve some practical problem, then that person has wasted his time. This is narrow-minded.

[Ivan Denisovich]

philosophy seems to be mostly opinion, science can be tested against reality

And yet it can change the world like few other things managed to. Just think of Karl Marx and his impact on well, everything.

[Paleophyte]

Scientists cannot answer the question "what is a good life?" The fact that philosophy cannot find a definitive answer to this question is not a reason to stop asking it.

So, you think that the question can't be answered but it's meaningful to keep asking it? Sounds like philosophy.