The relationship between Science and Philosophy

[fr0d0]

Only in the sense that a great ship and a makeshift raft are bound together by being enveloped by a great ocean.

Science is the raft. Theology is the great ship. I hardly see philosophy as useful. It's a box of maps, none of which are correct.

[Mudhammam]

Only in the sense that a great ship and a makeshift raft are bound together by being enveloped by a great ocean.

Science is the raft. Theology is the great ship. I hardly see philosophy as useful. It's a box of maps, none of which are correct.

The great ship that we admire from the submarine window.

Hardly useful? Ha! Philosophy makes the transition from child to adult, tribal to civilized, possible. Science makes it easier. Theology makes it trivial.

[g0sU]

They are non-overlapping by definition, but they themselves are not guaranteed always to be defined as we define them now. Consensus, if made by idiots, can be the greatest enemy of truth. So-- what's the chance that idiots will never get the chance to rebrand the word "science" in dangerous and ignorant ways?

I'd say zero. When science is treated as an institution rather than a collection of carefully-chosen philosophical assumptions and positions, it will be dead. Don't believe me? Look at the American educational system.

Well what stops those same idiots from making other "carefully chosen philosophical assumptions and positions"and pretend that they have a clue what they are talking about? If anything: consensus between more sophisticated philosophers. That´s simply the way human interactions work: If you´re the only one committed to a certain idea, chances are good nobody gives a shit.
The trick is to get the majority on the right track. And for this we only need the scientific method. To prove others wrong you simply have to find one counterexample, case closed. Getting a theory to the point where general consensus is that it is true, is a very long process of trying to dispprove it and getting to the point where denial is absurd in the eyes of most. By this method we might miss out on faster progress but we are as sure of things as humans can reasonably demand.
So to protect scientific integrity we only need peer review.

cheers

p.s.: Yes, false ideas have crept(?) in which I sadly consider unavoidable.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I certainly wouldn't displace philosophy as the handmaiden of science. Philosophy is rather the nurturing mother that allowed science to flourish, continuing to offer her wisdom and guidance. Science is the meticulous and prestigious daughter; theology is the son, a much older, poor, rambunctious, drunkard.

Agree with the first part, but obviously disagree with the second. Theology prefers hallucinogens.

[HopOnPop]

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science; Philosophy helps elucidate Science and prevents it from falling into pseudoscience"

Would you agree with that assessment? Why, why not?

Given the fact that every pseudoscientist thinks they are doing real science, it seems to me its a difference in philosophy which lead them astray. Thus, I believe philsophy can derail science into silliness just as easily as it can place it on a sound path. That said, however, it is difficult to deny the philosophical underpinnings to sound versions of the scientific process too. Many philosophers say the mere act of constructing a hypothesis is a philosophical act. The role of logic, too, is undeniably omni-present in science and undeniably the purview of philosophy as well.

I liked Dan Dennett's remark about the role of philosophy and philosophers as having the job of developing and "asking the good questions" that leads scientists to do more and interesting science.

In that light, philosophy doesn't prevent science from doing anything at all (including falling into pseudoscience) but, philosophy still remains one of several horses that pulls the science cart along its path, whatever that path may be. It might be a lead horse in some horse-trains, or it might be one of the strong-backs in the back of the train...it all depends upon the nature of the science being done.

Perhaps the physical sciences, like chemistry or physics or biology, depend far less upon philosophy leading their efforts (while still depending upon a strong-back or two which might represent the tried-and-true methods and technology developed for those fields), while many of the the softer, social sciences often are lead more by philsophical concerns out front.