Science or Philosophy?
In a debate where both science and philosophy are accepted, which approach do you prefer? And why not the other? Being the raging nerd that I am, science is the way I go. Whilst I can hold my own philosophically, I can't thrive in the same way I do using science.
Science
Side Score: 23
|
 |
Philosophy
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
2
points
Science being based upon the empirical directly indicates that it is not based upon necessity but upon extemporaneous events that are not tied to universal notions of things. Philosophy, on the other hand, is based upon necessity and what must be true or false. Therefore, philosophy by definition is more reliable, while science is not. Side: Philosophy
|
4
points
Science is a philosophy. It is a natural philosophy. It has tenets, structures and axioms, like any other system. The central axiom is that knowledge can be gained through empirical observation and replication (experimentation) of phenomena. I think that the debate creator mistook the body of scientific knowledge, which is to say, knowledge that has been gained through natural philosophy, for the philosophy itself. An analogous example would be to mistake the truth "X = ((-b+/-sgrt[b^2-4ac])(1/(2a)))" for mathematical philosophy, whereas it is really mathematical knowledge. In brief, 'tis a false dichotomy. Side: Philosophy
I entirely agree that science is philosophy as is any system of concepts. But not all philosophy is science so by 'philosophy' I mean non-scientific philosophy. I raise the question because, in the past, I would have dismissed non-scientific philosophy as simply unscientific. But now-a-days I find that a naive reaction. I think my question is a false dichotomy but not for the same reason as you. I'm going to have to paraphrase Dennett but his sense is that when you know what the questions are then you can do good science but if you're not sure what the questions are then you're doing philosophy. Essentially, you can do good science with easy problems but the hard problems require you to do good philosophy too. Side: Science
1
point
1
point
without the presence philosophical thought science would have never been taken seriously. the enlightenment had to do with many new ideas, namely the secularization of government and life outside of the church, this cleared the way for great scientific advances to be made unobstructed by persecution . to put philosophy and science in the ring with one another is like holding a grape next to the vine it was yielded and asking "which is better?". Side: Philosophy
Are you the type of solipsist that relies on the circular nature of solipsism to defend yourself or the type to accept arguments without saying "even your arguing with me is just a product of my own brain so there?" Also, I don't agree that it's the most extreme form of rationalism. I'd say that it's probably the most irrational philosophy to adhere to. Side: Science
1
point
Solipsists do not exist. Fact. If 'existence' is to mean anything then it has to be such that it applies to some things. If you want it to mean something that applies to nothing or a strictly limited set then be my guest but you're torturing a word in common usage which few people have difficulty using. Side: Science
|
