-
Destroying Science with Philosophy
Religion can't destroy Science. Why? Because they are dumber. Their assumptions don't hold up to truth. Truth is innate; we are born to know it since it is who we are; it is not founded on objectivity or facts; [B]it is simply founded on access.[/B] There are smarter people who can see the truth better than those who can't. And those people are called "Philosophers."
These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:
[B]1. They believe in facts.[/B]
Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: [B]what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today.[/B] What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.
[B]2. They believe in materialism.[/B]
What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. [B]Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees.[/B] But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. [B]Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory.[/B] But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.
[B]3. Their methodology at arriving truth.[/B]
1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion
That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an [B]intepretation of a person's view of reality.[/B] Not to mention, this methodology is [B]created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths[/B] (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).
[B]4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.[/B]
Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
Alright, so just lets stop improving. Even tho philosophy is somewhat underrated.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=CeltsGarlic]Alright, so just lets stop improving. Even tho philosophy is somewhat underrated.[/QUOTE]
Philosophy believes evolution is through the mind. Darwin conveniently ripped off Hegel and said it is due to survival. If it is due to survival, then why are we killing ourselves? Science is wrong. [B]Hegel is right.[/B] The greatest ideas of all time is what drives evolution.
Many people are brainwashed to believe Science is what drives evolution, well let me ask you this, if the best ideas are being studied all came from Philosophy (and not to mention Science copy righted those ideas to drive their theories), then isn't it logical to assume the root of human advancement is from philosophy itself?
This is the reason why philosophy is underrated: [B]those in power don't want people to see the value in it.[/B]
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
One way trip back to the caves. All aboard!
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
you must have really failed in life to create this psychopathic character that makes you think you are more enlightened than everyone else.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:
[B]1. They believe in facts.[/B]
Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: [B]what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today.[/B] What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.[/quote]
Facts are pieces observed phenomena. Some observations are wrong, some become more accurate but they are accepted as true because it is practical.
[quote][B]2. They believe in materialism.[/B]
What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. [B]Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees.[/B] But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. [B]Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory.[/B] But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.[/quote]
Again it is accepted because it is practical to do so. I'm not going to sit and ponder epistemology every time I decide to walk near a cliff edge, it is simply more practical to assume that it is wise to be cautious because the accepted fact of gravity is more that likely going to be in play.
[quote][B]3. Their methodology at arriving truth.[/B]
1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion
That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an [B]intepretation of a person's view of reality.[/B] Not to mention, this methodology is [B]created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths[/B] (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).[/quote]
Science doesn't arrive at truth, it arrives at what is false or what is not yet been demonstrated to be false.
[quote][B]4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.[/B]
Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that Kant and Descartes were standing on no one elses shoulders?
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
I find it rather funny that one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
a scientist says A=A and confirms with calculations and measurements.
but a philosopher argues that A cannot equal A because A is only perception of the mind, imagination, or emotion, and A is not reality so it has no measurement and therefore cannot equate to anything, including replication of itself, because A cannot be proven to exist nor not to exist, nor subexist nor pre-exist; therefore A has no congruent value nor equation, which means it cannot equal A.
these methods of explaining things are why scientists are paid a lot of money and philosophers are paid nothing. lol
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=Lebowsky]I find it rather funny than one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Guy rips off relativity concepts, ideas that scientists commonly hold, and puts it off as philosophy. Kinda ironic isn't it?
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Because they are dumber.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://cdn.gifbay.com/2012/10/there_is_no_need_to_be_upset-4390.gif[/IMG]
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
facts and truths are different things.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
Putting that philosophy major to use I see. Good job kid....lmao there are so many fallacies in your stupid little argument I don't even know where to begin.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
Science is simply tangible philosophy. I dont see what your beef is.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Science is simply tangible philosophy. I dont see what your beef is.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
how many threads is OP going to make about him destroying a certain belief, but then proceeds to get destroyed by everyone else?
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=Lebowsky]I find it rather funny that one of the dumbest posters on the whole board is the one posing as a wannabe philosopher and berating science.[/QUOTE]
Maybe he's getting paid in fallacies per minute?
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
Honestly whats the fukking point of even using a taxonomy and differentiating the disciples of thought into philosophy, science, and religion.
They all share the same damn mission.
Seek truth.
I say f*ck it.
Abolish it all.
Call it... planting seeds and harvesting the Tree of Knowledge.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=JEFFERSON MONEY]Honestly whats the fukking point of even using a taxonomy and differentiating the disciples of thought into philosophy, science, and religion.
They all share the same damn mission.
Seek truth.
I say f*ck it.
Abolish it all.
Call it... planting seeds and harvesting the Tree of Knowledge.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. OP with very childish agenda.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
Science is essentially a practical extension of Philosophy. Both work in very similar ways - they both derive from logic & are methods to try and explain various aspects of the world. The difference is that while science is more practical in explaining and dealing with reality (more practical - building hubble telescope, LHC, human genome project, all medical advances, atomic bomb, etc), philosophy relies heavily upon thought experiments.
To argue that philosophy or science are more important is idiotic. Both work hand-in-hand, but if we're simply talking about practical advancements for the better/worse of humanity, science overall had [B]SIGNIFICANTLY[/B] bigger impact.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
I took a philosophy class in college, it was by far the worst class i have ever taken.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
OP should give us knowledge he is intimate with, like what goes into the chicken pot pie at KFC.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=DCL]a scientist says A=A and confirms with calculations and measurements.
but a philosopher argues that A cannot equal A because A is only perception of the mind, imagination, or emotion, and A is not reality so it has no measurement and therefore cannot equate to anything, including replication of itself, because A cannot be proven to exist nor not to exist, nor subexist nor pre-exist; therefore A has no congruent value nor equation, which means it cannot equal A.
these methods of explaining things are why scientists are paid a lot of money and philosophers are paid nothing. lol[/QUOTE]
This is why philosophy is better; it deals with the universal while Science only deals with you see.
People who seek truths by the method of Science usually aren't seeking any truth at all. If you are versed in philosophy, you will know about the human mind, politics, art, logic, morality, religion and [B]yes even Science itself since *cough* they created this sh*t.[/B]
To say Science is a better world view when [B]it does not provide answers to 99% of world problems[/B] is just from a position of ignorance and a lack of appreciation and knowledge of Philosophy itself.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=bladefd]Science is essentially a practical extension of Philosophy. Both work in very similar ways - they both derive from logic & are methods to try and explain various aspects of the world. The difference is that while science is more practical in explaining and dealing with reality (more practical - building hubble telescope, LHC, human genome project, all medical advances, atomic bomb, etc), philosophy relies heavily upon thought experiments.
To argue that philosophy or science are more important is idiotic. Both work hand-in-hand, but if we're simply talking about practical advancements for the better/worse of humanity, science overall had [B]SIGNIFICANTLY[/B] bigger impact.[/QUOTE]
You want to talk about impact:
1. Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes created Science.
2. John Stuart Mills created the Science we are studying in schools today (yes there is a difference).
3. Einstein (most influential Scientist today) ripped off what Kant said 300 years ago.
4. Darwin ripped off Hegel's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theory to formulate his survival of the fittest.
5. Locke and Voltaire's ideas started the enlightenment movement which created America itself, and the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice for all is from Locke, which the founding fathers ripped off.
6. Nietzche is the father of modern psychology.
7. Schopenhauer is the father of sociology.
8. Adam Smith is the father of economics.
Not to mention, all the great mathematicians such as Euclid, Archimedes, Pythagoras, etc. are directly responsible for most of the math you know today.
The last huge impact Philosophy made was from Karl Marx and the huge revolution in communism, Dewey's creation of the public educational system, and sadly Hitler's influence from Nietzche. After that, Philosophy was controlled by all major industrialized nations because of Hitler;[B] this is the reason why you do not feel it's impact today.[/B]
[B]There is a reason why Philosophy is shunned and those in power do not want you to study it. Why do you think they can care less if the majority of the people are versed in such a narrow, unimaginative, fundamental view of reality such as Science and Religion? It is simply easier to control those with such a black and white perspective of things.[/B]
It is sad Philosophy has been watered down to a simple ethics bullsh*t class you take as an alternative curriculum in college class.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
How about this, science is a mixture of language and numbers. That's basically what it boils down to. You have math and language.
Math is more finite than science because language is greater than numbers. However, philosophy is based almost entirely on language and idea. I am a philosopher... brothar. I think it's great and I am more interested in ideas than reality. However, one must realize that science is an attempt to explain such philosophical ideas to the masses, the same way math has attempted to explain reality by assigning numerical values.
It's not even about our mind creating "reality"; it's more about being able to conceptualize above what you can not yet prove. That's what is holding back science. Theoretical science is like philosophy. Our ability to interpret this information is not as unrefined as our ability to express it. We have made it necessary to measure such things with tools, well, we don't have tools or measurements for "energy." Everyone knows energy, magnetism, etc exists but they don't really have a great idea how it skews reality, just that it does.
That's why I think science is bullshit. For instance, someone says an object always falls at this speed... no, it doesn't. So many variables you can't really tell what will happen at any given moment. I think that's why so many people go ape shit about certain events because it breaks their concept of what reality is. If you threw a ball and it just flew up into the air and never came back down to earth, you'd be like WTF. You might tell someone, but they wouldn't believe you. They'd say, that never could happen. But I bet we all have experienced an event while not that ridiculous, definitely made us question science.
-Smak
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]Religion can't destroy Science. Why? Because they are dumber. Their assumptions don't hold up to truth. Truth is innate; we are born to know it since it is who we are; it is not founded on objectivity or facts; [B]it is simply founded on access.[/B] There are smarter people who can see the truth better than those who can't. And those people are called "Philosophers."
These are the reasons why philosophers think those who abide by science are idiots:
[B]1. They believe in facts.[/B]
Facts don't exist. For something to be a fact, it has to be true since the beginning of mankind and for infinity. Well if you look at history, truths change all the time: [B]what we believe is true 100 years ago is wrong today.[/B] What we believe today to be true will be wrong 100 years from now. The closest we can come to a fact is in math, but even math is being challenged by different truths we are beginning to figure out.
[B]2. They believe in materialism.[/B]
What is materialism? It is the belief in what you see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. Well everything is vibration and energy. If a scientist is to be honest, he would say the table he sees in front of him is nothing more than a bundle of energy. The sound he hears is just a vibration. [B]Too bad he's too arrogant to admit this and proclaims it is indeed real based on what he sees.[/B] But a philosopher is at a higher level and admits it is the mind that turns the energy and vibration into reality, so therefore, reality is a product of the mind. [B]Even Science is a product of the mind since the starting point of it's truths is based on a theory.[/B] But Scientist can't accept this since they are too stubborn to look beyond this concept.
[B]3. Their methodology at arriving truth.[/B]
1. Observe
2. Hypothesis
3. Experiment
4. Conclusion
That is just a cliff note of the methodolgy but it's pretty stupid nonetheless. Why? Their premise is an observation. That in and of itself is subjective since what a person sees is totally different from what everybody else sees, so basically Science doesn't deal in objectivity and facts like they claim, but rather an [B]intepretation of a person's view of reality.[/B] Not to mention, this methodology is [B]created by John Stuart Mill and has been disproven as a methodology that does not yield any known truths[/B] (why do you think nothing great ever comes out of the public educational system that religiously practices this method of truth?).
[B]4. Scientists can't come up with their own ideas and usually rip off ideas from philosophy and claim it as their own.[/B]
Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack; the list goes on: even psychology, sociology, the liberal arts, etc. are nothing more than a bunch of rip offs of sh*t philosophers have said hundreds of years ago. A scientist can't come up with their own original thought if their life depended on it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Einstein pretty much stole every idea Kant wrote on space and time; Newton is a Descartes hack;[/QUOTE]
Kant talked about the theory of relativity? (how time gets slower as you approach the speed of light).
Kant talked about E=MC2? (that mass and energy are the same thing)
iirc Kant's whole thing was you need to do the right thing for no other reason that it was the right thing or you were immoral. I only took intro philosophy because I need some liberal arts courses and it was an easy A.
Descartes developed calculus?
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=ILLsmak]
Math is more finite than science because language is greater than numbers.[/quote] What?
[quote]However, one must realize that science is an attempt to explain such philosophical ideas to the masses, the same way math has attempted to explain reality by assigning numerical values.[/quote] Science isn't an attempt to explain anything to anyone.
[quote]It's not even about our mind creating "reality"; it's more about being able to conceptualize above what you can not yet prove. That's what is holding back science. Theoretical science is like philosophy.[/quote] Scientists make predictions which are either confirmed or falsified via experiment. Those predictions are based on conceptual models which they create to make sense of the universe. Through that process they refine their models, making them function more like the actual universe, and increase the accuracy of future predictions. Without the ability to make predictions, and form hypotheses (i.e "conceptualize above what you can not yet prove"), one wouldn't be able to do science.
[quote]Our ability to interpret this information is not as unrefined as our ability to express it. We have made it necessary to measure such things with tools, well, [B]we don't have tools or measurements for "energy.[/B]" Everyone knows energy, magnetism, etc exists but they don't really have a great idea how it skews reality, just that it does.[/quote]We have many tools for measuring energy!
[quote]That's why I think science is bullshit. For instance, someone says an object always falls at this speed... no, it doesn't.[/quote] You forgot the "in a vacuum" part.
[quote] If you threw a ball and it just flew up into the air and never came back down to earth, you'd be like WTF. You might tell someone, but they wouldn't believe you. They'd say, that never could happen.[/quote]Have you never seen a balloon?
[quote]But I bet we all have experienced an event while not that ridiculous, definitely made us question science.
[/QUOTE] Unless the universe behaved in a random way, I'm not sure why science wouldn't work.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]You want to talk about impact:
1. Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes created Science.
2. John Stuart Mills created the Science we are studying in schools today (yes there is a difference).
3. Einstein (most influential Scientist today) ripped off what Kant said 300 years ago.
4. Darwin ripped off Hegel's thesis, antithesis, and synthesis theory to formulate his survival of the fittest.
5. [B]Locke and Voltaire's ideas started the enlightenment movement which created America itself, and the ideas of freedom, liberty, and justice for all is from Locke, which the founding fathers ripped off.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
So by calling scientists stupid you're suggesting that medicine, technology, and any kind of comfort you have in this lifetime is pointless as long as we acknowledge philosophy as being the only truth. Yes philosophy is the thought of how to improve, but science is the action. Its nice to have a little of practicality mixed with spirituality to create a nice easy balance that is necessary for advancement. I respect philosophy, even theology to an extent.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=Dresta]This is wrong: those ideas far predated Locke. The founders built the country on a far broader foundation than simply Locke. To say 'they stole it all from Locke' is a gross simplification, and an incorrect one at that.[/QUOTE]
What is also ill-informed is he makes it seem as if the ideas of 'liberty, freedom & justice for all' weren't known of before Locke wrote about them in 17th century.
I guess somebody didn't learn about Greek philosophy long time before Locke and/or ideas of Eastern philosophy. Even Rome flirted with those very ideas here and there, but as we know, Roman Empire ended up being monarchy and even tyranny at times after the initial Roman Republic debacle (screw you, power-hungry bastard Julius Caesar). They also had major class divisions. Until the USA in late 18th century, the ideas of true liberty, freedom & justice for all were not 100% practiced by an entire nation, but they were known of WAAAAAY before Locke (technically, USA didn't truly follow "liberty, freedom & justice for all" until 1960s after civil rights movement).
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=bladefd]What is also ill-informed is he makes it seem as if the ideas of 'liberty, freedom & justice for all' weren't known of before Locke wrote about them in 17th century.
I guess somebody didn't learn about Greek philosophy long time before Locke and/or ideas of Eastern philosophy. Even Rome flirted with those very ideas here and there, but as we know, Roman Empire ended up being monarchy and even tyranny at times after the initial Roman Republic debacle ([B]screw you, power-hungry bastard Julius Caesar[/B]). They also had major class divisions. Until the USA in late 18th century, the ideas of true liberty, freedom & justice for all were not 100% practiced by an entire nation, but they were known of WAAAAAY before Locke (technically, USA didn't truly follow "liberty, freedom & justice for all" until 1960s after civil rights movement).[/QUOTE]
Not really fair to blame the collapse of the Roman Republic solely on Caesar. It was a decaying, failed institution long before he came into power. He just followed through on the examples set by Sulla and his mentor Marius (as well as the populare social reform ideals of the Gracchi)... which is exactly what Octavian would do himself once he inherited Caesar's name/estate.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
What was the point of this? :coleman:
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=Dictator]What was the point of this? :coleman:[/QUOTE]
That's very philosophical of you.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=IamRAMBO24]To say Science is a better world view when [B]it does not provide answers to 99% of world problems[/B] is just from a position of ignorance and a lack of appreciation and knowledge of Philosophy itself.[/QUOTE]
So why has it been for thousands of years philosophers have been philosophizing there has not been much improvement to most of the problems that faced humanity, but once the scientific method was unleashed so many of those problems went away or at least became manageable?
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
OP is clearly raging about how useless his major is. Can't find a job?
Science has its roots in philosophy, but has evolved into something more useful. Philosophy had its uses, but has run its course. There's nothing new or useful that it provides. The retards who have more than a casual interest in it tend to be useless navel gazing types who like to engage in solopsistic mental mastur.bation.
Philosophy didn't create the semiconductor devices that allow to post your idiocy on the intardnets.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
He blinded me with... philosophy!
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=miller-time]So why has it been for thousands of years philosophers have been philosophizing there has not been much improvement to most of the problems that faced humanity, but once the scientific method was unleashed so many of those problems went away or at least became manageable?[/QUOTE]
huh? Not that i agree with most of what the OP is saying, but this is equally inaccurate. Philosophy wasn't allowed in the years preceding the Enlightenment as the Church repressed anything but Christian theology brutally. And the Enlightenment, in its essence, was a philosophical movement (of which science was an aspect).
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=Dresta]huh? Not that i agree with most of what the OP is saying, but this is equally inaccurate. Philosophy wasn't allowed in the years preceding the Enlightenment as the Church repressed anything but Christian theology brutally. And the Enlightenment, in its essence, was a philosophical movement (of which science was an aspect).[/QUOTE]
So up until the enlightenment philosophy wasn't happening? Socrates didn't exist and neither did Lao Tzu? I'm talking thousands of years, not just the centuries that Christianity was running rampant throughout Europe. But even then I highly doubt the zero philosophy was going on during those years.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=miller-time]So up until the enlightenment philosophy wasn't happening? Socrates didn't exist and neither did Lao Tzu? I'm talking thousands of years, not just the centuries that Christianity was running rampant throughout Europe. But even then I highly doubt the zero philosophy was going on during those years.[/QUOTE]
I know very little about Chinese history and philosophy so i can't comment on that, but the Greeks lived about as long as people in Western civilisation did up until the discovery of penicillin (an accidental discovery that had nothing to do with the scientific method). In fact, many of the most important discoveries in science have been just that: accidental. Which is why the most important thing for the progression of scientific discovery is allowing the individual to pursue a path of his own choosing without restraint. To allow the dissemination of information without restriction etc. etc.
This is effectively freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, academic freedom, the freedom to live ones life without restraint etc.
All these ideas developed and became popular throughout the Enlightenment, and they were justified philosophically, not scientifically. See how much the scientific method did for Galileo when he was forced to retract his discoveries lest he be executed.
And i think you'll find that the scientific method existed long before the last few hundred years. It was present in Greece, it was present among the Muslims during the Middle Ages. There is a reason that science was called 'natural philosophy' - because the two go hand in hand. And what typifies science and makes it valuable is not the method, but the mode of thinking, a way of thinking that was developed through philosophy.
Most of what you readily accept as 'science' these days are experiments of little more validity than Plato's theory of forms (and which any competent scientist would recognise as severely flawed), yet they gobbled up by the masses who have bought into the supreme authority of science. The world would function far better if people were capable of exercising independent thought rather than credulously believing every bit of 'scientific evidence' that is thrown their way.
-
Re: Destroying Science with Philosophy
[QUOTE=Dresta]I know very little about Chinese history and philosophy so i can't comment on that, but the Greeks lived about as long as people in Western civilisation did up until the discovery of penicillin (an accidental discovery that had nothing to do with the scientific method). In fact, many of the most important discoveries in science have been just that: accidental. Which is why the most important thing for the progression of scientific discovery is allowing the individual to pursue a path of his own choosing without restraint. To allow the dissemination of information without restriction etc. etc.
This is effectively freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, academic freedom, the freedom to live ones life without restraint etc.
All these ideas developed and became popular throughout the Enlightenment, and they were justified philosophically, not scientifically. See how much the scientific method did for Galileo when he was forced to retract his discoveries lest he be executed.
And i think you'll find that the scientific method existed long before the last few hundred years. It was present in Greece, it was present among the Muslims during the Middle Ages. There is a reason that science was called 'natural philosophy' - because the two go hand in hand. And what typifies science and makes it valuable is not the method, but the mode of thinking, a way of thinking that was developed through philosophy.
Most of what you readily accept as 'science' these days are experiments of little more validity than Plato's theory of forms (and which any competent scientist would recognise as severely flawed), yet they gobbled up by the masses who have bought into the supreme authority of science. The world would function far better if people were capable of exercising independent thought rather than credulously believing every bit of 'scientific evidence' that is thrown their way.[/QUOTE]
I'm not arguing against any of that. My original post was responding to the point that philosophy is able to solve 99% of societies problems (and I was being slightly facetious). I'm not saying philosophy is useless, I'm saying that 99% is a ridiculous assumption. Science has solved so many problems that to deny its importance is ludicrous. The very fact we are having this conversation from across the world is a testament to that fact.
As important as the philosophical underpinnings were to the enlightenment they aren't wholly responsible for the quality of life that we (luckily) in the west get to experience. It opened the door, but it didn't do the leg work. Scientists did that.