Philosophy Versus Science

[Fake Messiah]

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
  

That seems rather simplified.

For example, laws. So we have Trump's Big Beautiful Bill thanks to philosophy.

Or scientific method. There has been several claims who came up with it, but it seems people discovered it after Copernicus and Galileo when they realized that they needed evidence for their claims.

Or human rights. That is rather left to individuals and groups who through history are fighting for their own rights. Like women's rights to education and voting or gays people rights to marriage. Why couldn't people simply see from philosophy books that women need to vote, but they had to be persuaded by protests which were sometimes violent?
Which then also change the ethical guidelines of the society.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps they do see, and they fight against it all the same. Violent protests and entrenched interests are pretty much the case example.

[Alan V]

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. 

To repeat (or summarize), my argument is that science, as a spin-off from philosophy, includes enough elements from philosophy as to no longer be accountable to philosophers. Science has effectively become something else, largely because of its requirements for testing experiments and supporting evidence.

I also think there are other spin-off disciplines which may not be accountable to philosophers. Those specializations, like science, are now in many ways too detailed and complex for philosophers to encompass. For instance, much of philosophical moral thinking is now embedded in our detailed laws. And scientists have all sorts of information and tools at their disposal for their work which most philosophers, unless they are also scientists, do not. Still, historical philosophers deserve praise for their successes, their offspring disciplines.

I personally am only interested in science and its own embedded philosophical principles because those are the ones which have been most productive. From that point of view, a lot of historical philosophy is now obsolete. We have verifiable answers to many of its questions and speculations.

However, I don't want to over-generalize. I do think that there are some spin-off disciplines, aside from science, which could use some philosophical tinkering. It's when theists use philosophy to claim that science is off-track that I especially take exception.

[Alan V]

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"?

People vote with their feet.  

However, I am likely wrong about this point.  People enjoy an expanded menu of experiences, but don't necessarily abandon the old.  It's difficult to say without more information.

[The Grand Nudger]

To repeat (or summarize), my argument is that science, as a spin-off from philosophy, includes enough elements from philosophy as to no longer be accountable to philosophers.  Science has effectively become something else, largely because of its requirements for testing experiments and supporting evidence.

This is also true of philosophy at an academic level.  Consider normative ethics.  The dominant theory is a realist reductive and scientific materialism.  They employ models, field observations, they make predictions and test their assumptions.  They draw from biology and from physics to support their arguments.  They construct elaborate experiments that the participants often do not understand the nature of - and study large scale natural experiments for more insight.  It's pretty hard to find any field in academia that doesn't want the credibility the methods of so called hard sciences can produce. Not so long ago archeology made a hard turn into scientific methodology, for the same reason, as well.

They write popularizing books about all this too, ofc, but the well has been thoroughly poisoned - much the same way that science still battles superstition. I personally think it's been productive.

[Belacqua]

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. 

To repeat (or summarize), my argument is that science, as a spin-off from philosophy, includes enough elements from philosophy as to no longer be accountable to philosophers.  Science has effectively become something else, largely because of its requirements for testing experiments and supporting evidence.

I also think there are other spin-off disciplines which may not be accountable to philosophers.  Those specializations, like science, are now in many ways too detailed and complex for philosophers to encompass.  For instance, much of philosophical moral thinking is now embedded in our detailed laws.  And scientists have all sorts of information and tools at their disposal for their work which most philosophers, unless they are also scientists, do not.  Still, historical philosophers deserve praise for their successes, their offspring disciplines.

I personally am only interested in science and its own embedded philosophical principles because those are the ones which have been most productive.  From that point of view, a lot of historical philosophy is now obsolete.  We have verifiable answers to many of its questions and speculations.

However, I don't want to over-generalize.  I do think that there are some spin-off disciplines, aside from science, which could use some philosophical tinkering.  It's when theists use philosophy to claim that science is off-track that I especially take exception.

This thread implies a false dichotomy, I think. As if the successes of science mean that philosophy is less necessary. But natural philosophy (what they used to call science) is only one part of what philosophy has traditionally done. 

Ethics, aesthetics, the philosophy of art, the interpretation of history, arguments concerning quality (e.g. one ideology is better than another) -- these are things that philosophy deals with which science by definition cannot. 

Moreover, you seem to think that the role of philosophy is to provide us with useful practical answers, and that if it isn't doing that it has failed. But keep in mind that several of Plato's dialogues end with aporia -- the goal of the book is not to provide answers but to demonstrate that the answers people thought they had are unsatisfactory. In other words, one of the main goals of philosophy is to make you less comfortable, less sure of yourself. People are sure of lots of things that they shouldn't be sure of. Their thinking seems universal and self-evident to them, when it is actually contingent on local historical conditions. People benefit by being aware of this, and reading books of philosophy is one method of becoming aware. 

Another example is Slavoj Zizek (who is certainly not on the same level as Plato, but is more recent). Much of his work is devoted to uncovering the ideological commitments people have which they aren't even aware of. We pick up beliefs concerning society and culture from the media, and these sink in without being questioned. Continental philosophy in recent decades has focussed on this particularly, from Roland Barthes to Pierre Bourdieu and many others. I think that becoming self-aware is a good thing, and philosophy fills this role while science does not. 

In fact the values which you are arguing for in this thread -- that scientifically-tested knowledge is the only kind worth having -- comes from a set of beliefs which has its own history. The fact that you hold other kinds of knowledge to be unimportant is a value judgment with implications for politics, ethics, and other fields of human society. Philosophers work on these things, and ignoring them means that you won't be aware.

[Belacqua]

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

What standards do you use to define "better"?

People vote with their feet.  

Yeah, I don't want to say that popularity equals quality. 

However, I am likely wrong about this point.  People enjoy an expanded menu of experiences, but don't necessarily abandon the old.  It's difficult to say without more information.

The philosophy of art is a fascinating field, with a rich history. The answers to the questions I asked you will be very different if you listen to Aristotle, Michelangelo, Lessing, Joshua Reynolds, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or Andre Breton. But these are not questions that can be addressed through scientific means.

[Alan V]

In fact the values which you are arguing for in this thread -- that scientifically-tested knowledge is the only kind worth having -- comes from a set of beliefs which has its own history. The fact that you hold other kinds of knowledge to be unimportant is a value judgment with implications for politics, ethics, and other fields of human society. Philosophers work on these things, and ignoring them means that you won't be aware.

You were making good sense until this last bit.

There are various kinds of knowledge which we would like to have, and in some cases even need, which nevertheless elude us. Scientifically-tested knowledge may be the only reliable kind, but it is always limited.

I think we humans are in more desperate straits than you might imagine. Philosophy as a means to approach desired knowledge is highly questionable IMO. This is a part of the reason why I am a variety of misanthrope. I don't trust philosophical methods because we humans are unalterably imperfect and our perceptions are always impermanent and incomplete. Scientists, at least, understand this problem and capture their knowledge in probabilities and statistics.

This is why I think religious people can't use philosophy to prove science is biased against certain conclusions. They are the people inclined to jumping to conclusions.

This is my justification for intellectual minimalism, at least. I believe in human diversity about other areas of concern because no final answers are pending, except where science has slowly filled in the blanks.

[Alan V]

The philosophy of art is a fascinating field, with a rich history. The answers to the questions I asked you will be very different if you listen to Aristotle, Michelangelo, Lessing, Joshua Reynolds, Dante Gabriel Rossetti, or Andre Breton. But these are not questions that can be addressed through scientific means.

I studied a lot of art history and opinions about art, and came up with nothing that made much sense to me. People have different preferences because of subjective assessments. That's it.

So yes, it is no wonder that science can't tackle questions about the arts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ethics, aesthetics, the philosophy of art, the interpretation of history, arguments concerning quality (e.g. one ideology is better than another) -- these are things that philosophy deals with which science by definition cannot. 

-a claim, not a fact.  Just as philosophy studies things that science studies, science studies things that philosophy studies, all the things listed here and, ofc, more..

People who say silly shit like this are more interested in carving out a scrutiny free fiefdom than the content of the subjects they seek to fence.