Philisophy or Science?

[AfterDawn]

Science brings in development and sins. Philosophy brings in conservativeness and humanity. At least this is what I heard. I've been gushing my minds over this issue for some days now. One thing is sure, the world is balanced by these two kind of things. I don't understand a thing, what will finally saves our rotten world in the future from the brink of destruction? I mean physically and mentally.

[ghassassin]

Philosophy gives you the idea, science gives the explanation. "Why the apples falls downwards?", was philosophical. The rest....was scientific. Philosophy can't invent a refrigerator (its really hot here), science can't give you ideas. Even inventions out of terrible failures are generated out of thoughts and not science.

[Soupnazi]

Philosophy gives you the idea, science gives the explanation. "Why the apples falls downwards?", was philosophical. The rest....was scientific. Philosophy can't invent a refrigerator (its really hot here), science can't give you ideas. Even inventions out of terrible failures are generated out of thoughts and not science.

QFT

Philosophy is the hypothesis, Science is the explanation.

[AfterDawn]

no no no that is not what i mean. I mean, examples: philosopher tends to stop the war by talking while scientist encourages it by developing many types of weapon. the question is, are science developments counted as necessary evil? or philosophy itself is blocking the acceleration of human civilization?

[MoonSideMKDS]

Bad thread to begin with.

better question.

Philosophy or Mathematics?

QFT

Philosophy is the hypothesis, Science is the explanation.

you have no idea what your talking about.

[Alex Ryder]

It should be more like Religion or Science? But that MUST have already been made.
Anyway, Science is the foundation of our modern lifestyle, so no-ones gonna say Philosophy. Come up with a question that actually fosters debate.

[Saintkoe]

Philisophy has nothing to do with religion though. They are pretty much polar opposites. Philisophy deals with logic, religion does not.

Philisophy is seeking an answer to A question. From Socrates trying to answer the immortality of the soul, to St. Anselm trying to prove the existance of god logically. Science in A lot of ways boost philisophical thinking, or is added by it. They can almost go hand in hand.
Most things in philisophy are questioned but the one truth given to almost any of them is math. 2+2 will always = 4 no matter how you look at it.
To me science explains the smaller stuff(gravity), while philisophy looks to solve the real big hard questions (why are we here), but neither can be looked on to oppose the other.

[nope]

from what i understand an educated philosipher will extend his knowledge to include maths and science, among other things, to gain a better understanding of all. in terms of what most seem to be thinking a man who asks questions versus a man who finds answers? the man with the answer will no doubt come out on top but searching for answers dosn't neccesarily mean they'll find them and even if they do it just means more questions. in the end they're all just walking around in the dark >.> thats just my oppinion though.

[Trice-kun]

I agree with Saintkoe. Even though both seek to answer questions, I think Science is tryin gto look foward, while philosophy is looking at the now. Scientists try to see how far the human race can advanced, and this has caused both good and bad things to happen. Science does. Philosophy is trying to answer questions. Is this right, wrong, why are we here. They both are searching for something, just in diffrent ways.

[Suimaru Urahara]

i belive that beacuse philosophy is all encompassing meaning it applies to all things that it is more important than science what came first the qeustion or the awnser hmm? they are both definetly neccesary but without a qeustion we would never have an awnser in this way philosophy and science go hand in hand as broad(philosophy) and precise(science)

[Spiral]

Philosophy is not just asking questions. -_-

It can be seen as many things, like a way of thinking or noticing. Thought itself can be considered philosophical, making just a scientific way of thinking a form of philosophy. Because philosophy means different things to different people, just because of it's loose nature, it is hard to say that Philosophy is better than Science or vice-versa.

Likewise, Science isn't always the answer. Science relies on a method that doesn't give room for subjective quantities or limited data. So a problem that should be solved with pure creative thought/imagination is put under the scrutiny of science, just to fail because of the apparent lack of objective data. Thus is the problem with proving God's existence with science, and other widely debated issues.

In terms of war and stuff. A philosopher can try to stop a war by using words, but sometimes the words need a medium to travel through, and that is where science comes in. Like with Japan during WWII. Words wouldn't have been enough since they were fighting to the death. Even though Germany had surrendered and everyone else was like "alright, alright, we give up," Japan was still like "no fricken way are we giving up to you Yankee bastards." No amount of philosophy was going to change them. So we used our nukes, and then everybody became philosophical. In a sense, the nuke were philosophy in action. In fact, you could probably call science "philosophy in action."

[Milareppa]

Science brings in development and sins. Philosophy brings in conservativeness and humanity. At least this is what I heard. I've been gushing my minds over this issue for some days now. One thing is sure, the world is balanced by these two kind of things. I don't understand a thing, what will finally saves our rotten world in the future from the brink of destruction? I mean physically and mentally.

In Physics, scientists often debate whether certain areas of physics are philosophy rather than science, such as string-theory or m-theory, because they're currently not really testable even though they are mathematically proven according to logical principles. Depending on which physicist you talk to will depend on whether that classifies as philosophy or science.

Philosophy and science goes hand-in-hand, the line between the two can blur in places, and scientists and philosophers will argue exactly where the line should be drawn as a result. Philosophical thought isn't necessarily beneficial and scientific advancement isn't necessarily bad. That said, a lot of technological advancements happen due to necessity, which is often a necessity born of war, but plenty of scientific advancements happen best during periods of peace (for example, it's hard to advance ecological and biological knowledge in the middle of a war). By the same token, philosophy often requires the luxury of time for debate and analysis. Wars don't often provide such time, except for restricted lines of thought and exploration - which may advance, but at the expense of broader subjects.

[WOTG]

The question you're asking for this thread doesn't make sense. Philosophy and Science are not the same thing, while they are not opposites.

Science uses mathematical studies to uncover truth.
Philosophy uses rational thinking to understand truth.

[Spiral]

The question you're asking for this thread doesn't make sense. Philosophy and Science are not the same thing, while they are not opposites.

Science uses mathematical studies to uncover truth.
Philosophy uses rational thinking to understand truth.

Eh...not quite. There is a philosophy of mathematics. Science is not confined to just math, and the term science usually applies to use of the scientific method. The scientific method is considered rational thinking.

[JustPassingBy]

Philosophy can't invent a refrigerator (its really hot here), science can't give you ideas.

Yes, the idea to stimulate a certain molecule through a electromagnetic wave of a specific frequence due to the molecule's particular atomic structure was so highly philosophical...
(I'm talking about the microwave).

[WOTG]

Eh...not quite. There is a philosophy of mathematics. Science is not confined to just math, and the term science usually applies to use of the scientific method. The scientific method is considered rational thinking.
Just like there's a philosophy of science... That's actually exactly what they are. There are similarities between them, but they're not the exact same thing, and not opposite.

[Dr.Phil]

I believe Philosophy and science go hand in hand. Your philosophical view will determine how you view science,(what should and shouldn't be pursued) and science can change your Philosophy. They are not the same, but should always agree.

[stille_nacht]

philosophy and science are really rather unrelated in the sense that the spheres in which they act are rather unconnected. in individuals though, science and philosophy are tied together, after all, your "philosophy" or as i understand it your set of morals, determine what you will or will not do, and that affects how you use science. however while science is a march of technological and theoretical innovation which provides understanding and technology, philosophy is a march of metaphysical and conjectural progress which helps us understand the human psyche. they would relate if, say, a philosopher decided science was bad, but as this is probabely not going to happen, at the moment they are rather unrelated...

[Milareppa]

philosophy and science are really rather unrelated in the sense that the spheres in which they act are rather unconnected. in individuals though, science and philosophy are tied together, after all, your "philosophy" or as i understand it your set of morals, determine what you will or will not do, and that affects how you use science. however while science is a march of technological and theoretical innovation which provides understanding and technology, philosophy is a march of metaphysical and conjectural progress which helps us understand the human psyche. they would relate if, say, a philosopher decided science was bad, but as this is probabely not going to happen, at the moment they are rather unrelated...

No, they're related. You don't get too far in science without at least some understanding of the philosophical development of your own field, and it's very common for scientists to pursue more in-depth knowledge of the philosophy connected to their discipline, even if it's not as going as far as actually doing a philosophy degree.

[stille_nacht]

i did say that on a personal, and not an acheivment perspective they were related, so basically milarrepa agrees. in the sense of acheivments, or innovations, they are not terribly interelated, but if you look at the individual, then philosophy takes part in everything....

[Raptorski]

philosophy is easy all you need to do is speculate...Science is hard, you actually need to work hard and know what your doing

[stille_nacht]

well to be a truly great philosopher, you need a measure of talent, intellect, and effort also... like socrates.... but i agree that science typically require more effort

[A4NoOb]

The question you're asking for this thread doesn't make sense. Philosophy and Science are not the same thing, while they are not opposites.

Science uses mathematical studies to uncover truth.
Philosophy uses rational thinking to understand truth.

If this was the case, then what would you consider the realizations of Descartes? How would you measure Plato's theories on social structures? Now, every scientific or philosophical subject which can be studied is separated into their respective disciplines (perhaps this is necessary). Science and philosophy, under the Socratic method were heavily intertwined areas. Both require logic and an astute manipulation of facts. Whether it is genetic research and bioethics or astrophysics and theology these subjects cannot be pulled away from each other like water and oil.

[Milareppa]

well to be a truly great philosopher, you need a measure of talent, intellect, and effort also... like socrates.... but i agree that science typically require more effort

I disagree - the effort is simply different.

I don't have a philosophy degree to my name, although I have friends that do, so I can only approach this through the science side, since I do have a couple of science degrees. My brother is among several people I know, however, that have degrees in both science and philosophy. There's a lot more to philosophy than meets the eye. It certainly does seem like the soft option on the surface, and there's no end to the teasing my brother has received for having done a philosophy degree (including from me) - but there's no denying the kind of workload he actually had to do to complete the degree. Including the maths. To paraphrase a comment he once made on the subject (it's hardly a direct quote):

"It's ironic - it feels like I've studied more philosophy in physics and more physics in philosophy."

A lot of people during his philosophy degree dropped out because they were shocked by, and couldn't handle, the mathematical and logical components. And a lot of people he went into physics dropped out because they didn't want anything to do with the philosophy of science. While I didn't study philosophy to the depth he has done, I did notice a certain similarity in trend in my own field (which is mainly biological sciences). A lot of people had a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that there was an aspect of philosophy that is inescapable in training to be a scientist - it's necessary, but how advanced you want to become in it is optional. Just as a certain degree of scientific understanding is required for philosophy as well. The effort required to succeed at one or the other cannot be pinned down because different people excel in different areas. What requires more effort for one person will not be the same for another. Science may require more effort for some people, but others will find the philosophy requires greater effort.