CreateDebate


Debate Info

1
10
Yes: "X" is Superior to "Y" No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct
Debate Score:11
Arguments:6
Total Votes:11
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes: "X" is Superior to "Y" (1)
 
 No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct (5)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(671) pic



Philosophy vs Science: Is there is a Zero-Sum Conflict Between the Two Disciplines?

Stephen Hawking's proclaimed, "Philosophy is Dead".  Is Hawking right or wrong?  Thoughts?

See these short articles:

1.  https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss
2.  https://www.quora.com/How-are-philosophers-reacting-to-Stephen-Hawkings-proclamation-that-philosophy-is-dead
3.  http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/why-are-scientists-philosophers-fighting-again

Yes: "X" is Superior to "Y"

Side Score: 1
VS.

No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct

Side Score: 10

At the end of the day there's a reason why philosophers all look homeless and depressed and scientists look homeless and fulfilled.

Both are geniuses of their own kind, scientists just have a useful form of genius.

Side: Yes: "X" is Superior to "Y"

I honestly think most philosophers are boring, anally retentive morons, who follow an academically dead discipline.

That said, I also believe that philosophical ideas can eventually be developed into a science of the abstract. It is strange that Hawking disparages philosophy because he philosophises constantly in his writing. Although it may be convoluted and seemingly pointless to many, what philosophy attempts to do is take the material data of science and logically extrapolate upon it in much the same way that a mathematician does with a complex physical problem. It looks for answers beyond the material.

Side: No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct
2 points

That said, I also believe that philosophical ideas can eventually be developed into a science of the abstract. It is strange that Hawking disparages philosophy because he philosophises constantly in his writing. Although it may be convoluted and seemingly pointless to many, what philosophy attempts to do is take the material data of science and logically extrapolate upon it in much the same way that a mathematician does with a complex physical problem. It looks for answers beyond the material.

Agreed. In fact, a lot of what is done in Theoretical Physics (and other Theoretical Sciences/Engineering, ect) are strictly speaking a form of Natural Philosophy rather than Science when there is an absence of real data to go off of. It is highly useful to construct models that are potentially true that are constrained by the known mechanics but explore the unknown. This makes the "line" between science and philosophy very blurred rather than very strict (in my view).

Side: No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct
2 points

I think Philosophy gives Science things to question, to answer, to contradict. Some things may be largely true, others, provably false. Many philosophers hit the nail on the head, others science has proven VERY wrong. It is a source to be looked at.

Side: No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct
2 points

See: Daniel Dennett.

Philosophy, in a rather pure form, is alive and well. It relies on good science, but is not science, itself.

Side: No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct
1 point

@ElonG. See: Daniel Dennett.

I'm familiar with Dennett's work. Thank you for providing a reference.

Side: No: "X" and "Y" are Distinct