Philosophy Versus Science

[Fake Messiah]

Scientists cannot answer the question "what is a good life?"

No one can answer that question except people individually for themselves, unless you want to live in some totalitarian society where other people tell you what life you should be living.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Belacqua

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.

I agree that the question should continue to be asked. It gives philosophers something to do besides teaching philosophy and hosting TV quiz shows.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Scientists cannot answer the question "what is a good life?"

No one can answer that question except people individually for themselves, unless you want to live in some totalitarian society where other people tell you what life you should be living.

And who knows? Perhaps living under totalitarianism is what constitutes a good life for some people. As you said, it’s an individual thing.

Boru

[GrandizerII]

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

Here are some ideas put into practice that came about thanks to philosophy (and that many of us here consider to be good solutions to many of the problems in this world):

• the scientific method
  
• government
  
• laws
  
• democracy
  
• secularism
  
• secular humanism
  
• human rights
  
• freedom of speech
  
• freedom of/from religion
  
• capitalism
  
• socialist programs
  
• ethical guidelines
  
• pacifism
  

I can keep going, but many problems have been solved* partly thanks to philosophy.

Science provides the tools in some cases; philosophy provides the ideas in these same cases and many more.





*Note if the question of what counts as "solved" crossed your mind while reading this, just remember what examining that question entails.

[GrandizerII]

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.

In all my debates with theists, I have not seen one theist make that statement. I suspect that in your paraphrasing, you may have unintentionally misrepresented what they are saying.

And for the record, many theists think we are the ones trying to ignore the whole question of evidence. When they ask us what counts as evidence, we answer, and then they challenge our answers, and we fumble. And part of the reason why is because we don't take philosophy as seriously as theists do. I have seen this time and time again, and it can be quite frustrating to see.

Of course, I am speaking generally, and in the context of online debates and forums like this one.

Also, theism doesn't need to go against science, at least insofar as it hasn't yet disproven/falsified the existence of God.

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.

They don't need to go back, but it's always good to remember how useful philosophy has been, and continues to be, to the development of the various sciences.

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.

Except that all theories of knowledge came about through philosophy, not science.

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.

I'm all for methodological naturalism, but we shouldn't be blind to the fact that we need to resort to philosophy when pushed in the context of a debate to defend it.

After all, even excluding theists, not everyone agrees that pragmatism leads to truths or even success for that matter. Because, and to be annoyingly philosophical again, what is "success" exactly?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well. Ill push back on that. The decline of western religion is directly related to it;s lack of pragmatic implications. Just a short while ago agriculturalists were praying to jesus for rain and that prayer was life or death to the people involved.

The decoupling of religious and pragmatic truth has been devastating for religion. They were once assumed to be the same. People had long turned to the gods to stop their pain and to enable the natural preconditions of their way of life. Insomuch as there are now alternatives that the religious themselves believe to be more credible - that sets up a conflict.

[Alan V]

Here are some ideas put into practice that came about thanks to philosophy (and that many of us here consider to be good solutions to many of the problems in this world):

• the scientific method
  
• government
  
• laws
  
• democracy
  
• secularism
  
• secular humanism
  
• human rights
  
• freedom of speech
  
• freedom of/from religion
  
• capitalism
  
• socialist programs
  
• ethical guidelines
  
• pacifism
  

I can keep going, but many problems have been solved* partly thanks to philosophy.

Science provides the tools in some cases; philosophy provides the ideas in these same cases and many more.

*Note if the question of what counts as "solved" crossed your mind while reading this, just remember what examining that question entails.

Yes, there are unquestionably all sorts of useful spinoffs from philosophy which, like science, are no longer accountable to philosophers. I would include logic in that list.

However, the point which you are now making is that philosophy has broken into separate disciplines, each a specialization in its own right but each of which includes the genetics of philosophy. That's simply how things evolve with time. Philosophy is their great grandpa.

I was raised to believe in the fine arts like painting and sculpting, but can admit that they are not what they once were because cameras, computers, movies, and machines came along and performed many of their functions with better results. Professionally I rode the wave of technology or I would have become obsolete much earlier than I did.

[Alan V]

I'm all for methodological naturalism, but we shouldn't be blind to the fact that we need to resort to philosophy when pushed in the context of a debate to defend it.

My bolding. What do you mean by "we"? I am not defending philosophy, except historically.

I think the facts support the idea that philosophy as a discipline is now largely obsolete, since its many spin-offs have become so specialized in their own rights.

[Belacqua]

Here are some ideas put into practice that came about thanks to philosophy (and that many of us here consider to be good solutions to many of the problems in this world):

• the scientific method
  
• government
  
• laws
  
• democracy
  
• secularism
  
• secular humanism
  
• human rights
  
• freedom of speech
  
• freedom of/from religion
  
• capitalism
  
• socialist programs
  
• ethical guidelines
  
• pacifism
  

I can keep going, but many problems have been solved* partly thanks to philosophy.

Science provides the tools in some cases; philosophy provides the ideas in these same cases and many more.

*Note if the question of what counts as "solved" crossed your mind while reading this, just remember what examining that question entails.

Yes, there are unquestionably all sorts of useful spinoffs from philosophy which, like science, are no longer accountable to philosophers.  I would include logic in that list.

Yeah, now you're just going through the list and declaring that everything YOU consider worthwhile and successful isn't philosophy, and everything you consider to be not worthwhile is philosophy. 

If you were the guy who decides the definitions of English words, I guess we'd have to take your word for it. 

The people who write the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy think that logic is a part of philosophy.

https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search...uery=logic

Earlier someone here even claimed that ethics is no longer a part of philosophy. Again, there are those who disagree. For example, Harvard University includes classes on ethics in its philosophy department. 

If you have an argument to explain why every field in philosophy has to be a failure by definition, while every field which is successful is not philosophy, you could argue for that, I guess.

[Belacqua]

I was raised to believe in the fine arts like painting and sculpting, but can admit that they are not what they once were because cameras, computers, movies, and machines came along and performed many of their functions with better results.

What arguments do you have to define what "their functions" are when talking about art?

What standards do you use to define "better"?