Philosophy Versus Science

[Alan V]

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.

[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

[zebo-the-fat]

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

[Paleophyte]

When philosophy works we stop calling it philosophy and give it a new name like "science" or "ethics".

[HappySkeptic]

Science doesn't need metaphysical naturalism to work. One could change every "law" of physics to say "given X, God does Y". The problem is that there is zero difference between that and a statement that does not include God.

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.

If there is a deity who futzes around with reality only when people aren't looking, and hides all evidence of it, then we are in trouble. But then, so are the theists, who must explain why such a deity exists, and how they know anything about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think science and philosophy both have a continuous responsibility to prove themselves. As for what theists say - so what. They'll say anything. In saying that, though, a person removes any doubt as to whether or not they believe their beliefs are scientific. So, fine, tell us that science rules out your beliefs a priori - so long as we never hear any nonsense about scientific rationalizations for said beliefs.

-and that's how you do philosophy.

[Alan V]

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

In certain ways, scientific discoveries have become so counter-intuitive that I don't believe any philosopher could have come to the same conclusions. So I'm not sure what philosophers could propose that might assist scientists.

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

I would love to hear Christians say the same thing, but I think they are too far beyond that point already.

[Alan V]

Science doesn't need metaphysical naturalism to work.  One could change every "law" of physics to say "given X, God does Y".  The problem is that there is zero difference between that and a statement that does not include God.

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.

If there is a deity who futzes around with reality only when people aren't looking, and hides all evidence of it, then we are in trouble.  But then, so are the theists, who must explain why such a deity exists, and how they know anything about it.

Those are similar to my conclusions as well.  Methodological naturalism doesn't have to jump to the conclusion of metaphysical naturalism to support a naturalistic worldview.

In fact, by claiming that atheists are a bunch of metaphysical naturalists, theists overlook the fact that most of us are not philosophers at all.  That's why so many of us keep asking for evidence rather than one argument piled on top of another.

[GrandizerII]

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.

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).

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".

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.

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.

[Belacqua]

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.