CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Which is more fufilling to humanity: Philosophy or Science?
Science is the process in which we come to understand our reality using the scienctific process. Philosophy is the process in which we come to understand the nature of our reality using logic. Science has opened the doors for the advancement of humanity, while philosophy has helped us understand what it all means. Which is more fufilling to humanity?
Philosophy makes a man wise as it helps them understand who they are and maybe even their reason in existence. It breeds a man that can speak well, think more efficiently, understand more, and question everything. Think of our reality as a Matrix; It is a physical world that we have come to understand as reality. Philosophy dissects and looks through the Matrix, while Science studies the matrix. Why is understanding the workings of our environment more important for the ever dubious human being than understanding who we should be as people?
Philosophy is like sending scouts, and science is like sending the army. Philosophy will explore beyond the box and science will examine and conquer, and inbetween you have metaphysics/quantum physics, which does both. Philosophy is the freedom of thinking that helped lead the way for science and to help us better understand tthe world and ourselves... but you still get the idiots sitting there with "glass half full, also half empty" and other trivia, and calling themselves philosophers.
Philosophy is the process in which we come to understand the nature of our reality using logic.
And the idea for a new theory comes from philosophy, by the above definition. And when you think about it it is true - first you need an idea, then you prove it false or true by testing it.
Without philosophy there would be no science as it currently is. Without science we would not know as much as we do now and will in the future.
It is irrelevant which one is more fulfilling or better, as they are both necessary. But if you look at the survival of humanity then without science and technology we will one day definitely die, we most probably will anyway but science and technology can lengthen our survival.
And I'm on the side "science is more fulfilling", if you didn't notice...
In a debate that is titled, "Which is more fulfilling to humanity: Philosophy or Science?" im pretty sure that its not an irrelevant question. Also, is it not true that our need for an industrial/ technological world has exhausted Earths ability to keep up with Humans? Knowing this, without science we would have never gotten to the point where we started to use gasoline, therefore there wouldn't be an energy crisis, nor would there have been global warming. If anything our technology is going to be the death of us as well as it was the death of the animals that have become extinct. Our advanced civilization has been destructive to the earth and all that inhabit it. Philosophy is all in our minds, as it causes no destruction. It helps people become better and more virtuous.
Also, is it not true that our need for an industrial/ technological world has exhausted Earths ability to keep up with Humans?
Earth will die one day, long before the Sun will engulf it. If we are still alive when that time comes (assuming we haven't left this dead rock by then) then we must be scientifically and technologically advanced enough to leave this planet and find a new home. That's what I meant. But there are other threats that could also kill us long before that, like a massive solar storm, a meteor, a virus goes crazy, even alien invasion, etc. They are all possibilities we must prepare for even if they won't happen.
nor would there have been global warming.
Yes there would. Global warming is not caused by men, it is only accelerated by us.
If anything our technology is going to be the death of us as well as it was the death of the animals that have become extinct.
So let's abolish science and technology and embrace our inevitable death!
If anything then it will save us from extinction, at least for longer than otherwise.
How about we advance our science and technology to the point where we can terraform a dead planet and move life from here to there? It is possible, simply needs a lot more knowledge than we currently have.
Developing technology and science goes in parallel with keeping the life around us in existence, because there is too much to learn from living organisms to let them simply die. Plus we need them to keep ourselves alive.
Our advanced civilization has been destructive to the earth and all that inhabit it.
Because our "ways" are still flawed. People are too stupid, ignorant, or they simply don't care about anyone but themselves, not all of course but too many to set things right right this moment.
Overpopulation is one of our biggest issues right now, in fact it is the biggest issue. 7 billion is far too many. Most of that comes from underdeveloped countries, while most science is done in developed countries. By a population of 2 billion? 2.5? And the rest, 4 or 3 billion, are for what? For slowly wasting all resources and thus killing our planet? Seems so.
Since we can control everything we do, we must also control our own population. If it is not possible to be done by calm and peaceful means, or we are too late, then it must be done by force, because if we do not control it we will simply die. Our nature (all plants and animals) are necessary to keep all life on this planet going, that includes us. If the population reaches too high, life here will slowly begin dying because the atmosphere, the soil, the water will become contaminated and unable to support life without first processing it. Now who would want that?
We have the capacity to do what is right, we simply have to do it.
Philosophy is all in our minds, as it causes no destruction. It helps people become better and more virtuous.
And all of it is pointless if we will definitely die, without even the slightest possibility of survival. No science and technology means just that.
It is true that if we want to lengthen the span of humanity we have to be advanced enough to inhabit other planets, but just because we are obsessed with longevity doesn't mean we have the right to kill the planet that gave us life and the other life forms on it. Planets like Earth are extremely rare, what gives us the right to destroy it?
It is true that Global warming happens because of fluxes in the sun, but we have damaged the ozone layer and the ecosystems of so many lifeforms from our pollution. The greenhouse gas build up has caused the poles to melt and the water levels to rise. This shows that the earth is not at its most efficient state of homeostasis, and it is because of humanities selfishness with technology and production.
If ours ways are flawed, wouldn't focusing on ourselves and shifting our importance of the superficial self to the importance of actualizing the self make the world a better place? One could argue that if the world was full of Socrates', we wouldn't have gone so far as to kill our Earth.
Planets like Earth are extremely rare, what gives us the right to destroy it?
I never said we would be the ones to destroy it. It will die on its own anyway, one day. Considering it loses hydrogen 90 or so tonnes every year. I wonder if that hydrogen comes from water. If it does that means the earth will eventually dry up, killing nearly all life here (there are microorganisms that don't need water). But that will take very long.
It is true that Global warming happens because of fluxes in the sun, but we have damaged the ozone layer and the ecosystems of so many lifeforms from our pollution. The greenhouse gas build up has caused the poles to melt and the water levels to rise.
A natural process all of it, we simply accelerated it. The earth cools and warms up naturally, I'm sure you have heard there have been recurring ice ages.'
This shows that the earth is not at its most efficient state of homeostasis, and it is because of humanities selfishness with technology and production.
All humans have done is accelerated all of it, and it does have negative impact but if we were to begin acting right, then it would all heal fairly quickly. Also keeping in mind that we could develop technologies to help speed the process, and if things get really messed up that is exactly what will be done, whatever the "cost". Deep down, no one wants to let humanity die, well, most anyway... (I hope I'm right on this, considering the current state of everything...)
If ours ways are flawed, wouldn't focusing on ourselves and shifting our importance of the superficial self to the importance of actualizing the self make the world a better place? One could argue that if the world was full of Socrates', we wouldn't have gone so far as to kill our Earth.
You cannot make the world a better place by only thinking about it, you need to act too.
Making mistakes is natural. So is learning from them and avoiding future ones. Putting aside science and technology and just thinking about things with no real practical value is not exactly learning, it is a mistake, a mistake that would be understood once the face of extinction arrives. But then it would be too late to correct ways.
Science is more fulfilling because it brings answers, and it's fulfilling to get your questions answered.
Philosophy, at least to me, seems more of just thinking about the possibilities, and while that may be fulfilling to certain individuals, I think actually getting results that you get with Science is more fulfilling for people as a whole.
One who pursues science asks different questions than philosophers, Science answers more questions, but are they the questions that should be answered? Knowing how it all works seems less important than knowing our place in it..
One who pursues science asks different questions than philosophers,
Of course they do, otherwise they wouldn't be different things, and we wouldn't be having this debate. But making this point doesn't really argue anything. It just states the obvious that they are different.
Science answers more questions, but are they the questions that should be answered?
There's no such thing as a stupid question, and if we didn't have science then we wouldn't have time to answer philosophical questions. Science gives people a longer, and healthier life.
Knowing how it all works seems less important than knowing our place in it..
That may be true for you, but that's not true for everyone. I personally don't care where humans really came from, nor do I care if we have some "meaning" to our lives. Or finding out what it is. I'm just having fun with what I've been given.
So you may think that way, but not everyone does.
And as a whole, people are more interested and fulfilled by science than they are by philosophy.
Science uses philosophy to ask questions and possibly give an educated guess based on logic and reason. But science brings something to the table that has progressed us; putting the hypothesis to the test.
Since philosophy asks, and science asks and tests, I'm inclined to this side.
But why is it more fulfilling to humanity? You have picked science as being more efficient at answering our questions, but how is it more beneficial to the human experience? Philosophy makes a man of virtue, while Science makes a man of calculation.
I disagree, I do not think science merely makes a man of calculation. While accuracy is important to our progression, many scientists are fascinated with nature and how everything works. Those people find value, serenity, virtue, etc... in nature, so can we. My only example is a auto-tuned "song" called "We Are Connected" by Symphony Of Science (or maybe it's called "We Are All Connected"). The song takes documentaries, interviews and speeches from scientists speaking with that same passion I'm trying to describe. And it's not about being a nerd or interested in calculation, it's about finding the beauty and significance in what we have around us.
But in all, why I chose science as most fulfilling is because science also uses philosophy, while philosophy only uses itself. With Science you get a two-for-one deal.
Science literally means knowledge. Philosophy is a branch of science. To ask whether science or philosophy is more fulfilling is like asking "what is more filling, food or Italian food?".
That's a good point I did not think about. I was focused on Philosophy (asking questions, possibly attempting to solve by rational thought), and Science being the Scientific Method (asking questions, actual experimentation.
I disagree. Science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning, as I already mentioned, knowledge.
If we look at the etymology of the word philosophy, it is a combination of the Greek words Phil, meaning love and sophia, meaning wisdom. Philosophy is therefore the love of wisdom. Sophy is an adaptation of the word sophia, which can mean "science of".
As wisdom is equatable to knowledge, philosophy can mean love of knowledge, and since we know that science is knowledge, we can therefore conclude that philosophy is a form of science. Philosophy is a means of gaining knowledge, and knowledge is science.
You might object, saying that wisdom is not knowledge itself, but making the best use of knowledge. The accumulation of wisdom would not be possible without knowledge, and since knowledge is science, and since philosophy is the love and study of wisdom, philosophy exists to make the best use of science. In other words, philosophy would be void without science.
I very much dislike your condescending tone. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am stupid or haven't done my research. The more insults someone's argument contains, the weaker the argument is likely to be. And it says a lot that you criticised me for being less smart than you, yet you don't seem to be able to spell your insults properly. It's really not hard, it's one button to sort it.
How do you define philosophy and science then? I'm just pointing out that philosophy is a way to accumulate knowledge, and knowledge is science.
I'm not saying philosophy is useless, quite the opposite, philosophy is the accumulation of wisdom, and wisdom is how you use knowledge. Without science, philosophy couldn't exist, and without philosophy, most of the knowledge collected couldn't be utilised.
And humans have been using science since before we were homo sapiens. When apes develop tools, they do it through experimentation. Even something as simple as babies putting everything in their mouth is a way to gain knowledge about the world around them. As they grow older, they can use philosophy to make use of the knowledge they learned, and perhaps muse on the epistemology of the knowledge itself.
"but you still get the idiots sitting there with "glass half full, also half empty" and other trivia, and calling themselves philosophers."
That sounds more closely related to scientific measurement. Without advancements in medical science, philosophy wouldn't have mattered at all. The meaning of life isn't so important when you've got gangrene or dysentery.