Philosophy Versus Science

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

From a historical perspective, science developed within philosophy but spun off into its own discipline with its own methods.  So in my opinion, scientists are no longer accountable to philosophers because the available evidence supports scientific ideas instead.  Further, science has incorporated the most useful bits of philosophy into its own methods, so scientists can do their own philosophy when necessary to develop their hypotheses.

However I have heard arguments, especially from theists, claiming that science must still prove itself to philosophers.  They claim that science is necessarily tied to metaphysical naturalism and not just to methodological naturalism, so that it automatically excludes certain ideas and evidence.  These kinds of claims comprised a long back-and-forth in the Atheist Discussion forum.

So I was wondering what the people posting at Atheist Forums thought about this issue.

I think you’re right. Philosophy is largely speculation, whereas science is largely experimentation.

If a scientific theory or finding doesn’t jibe with philosophy, that’s a problem for philosophers, not scientists.

‘Then Buddhism would have to change.’ - the Dalai Lama, when asked what would happen if science disproved certain aspects of Buddhism.

Boru