Jas asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 week ago

Are philosophy and science at odds?

I found an article long time ago that talked about how scientists like Tyson and Hawking were dismissive of philosophy. I couldn't find the article to cite but if it's true though, it got me thinking. Why is asking questions and thinking about things considered bad when that's what's science does this all the time?

18 Answers

Relevance
  • doesnt have to be, just like religion and philosophy dont have to be at odds either 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 7 days ago

    Philosophy is the base science. The word means a love of knowledge. Your science degrees are PhD - doctor of philosophy. And if you take philosophy in college, you'll discover it's a hard course - like math or formal logic. People use the term philosophy to mean armchair speculating about conjectures with a cigar and brandy, but that's their mistake to use the term that way. It's not that at all.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • There is nothing wrong with asking questions.  Philosophy was a long time before science ever made claim to their own special interests.  Everything was under the heading of Spirituality, all arts and sciences.  As with everything else in this life, it branched off.

    The best to me is that which was of the very first records of humanity.  This is where you will find the Source of everything, before it was divided.  :D

    Also, much of science is one man's theory.  You can get lost in theories but not, philosophy.  :D

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 week ago

    Not really at odds. Philosophy is speculation. Science is about researching, examining and experimenting, to find concrete answers. Sometimes you need speculation to inspire something to research. Other times a scientific discovery inspires philosophical theories.

    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      1 week agoReport

      environmental behavioural stresses (economic & educational & social stress REDUCTION in all INDIVIDUALS) in tandem with reducing the Total human Environmental Footprint   (such scaled "CARBON footprints" are happening in companies & institutions now already..). 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 week ago

    Philosophy strength and weakness is that is has no constraints.   Philosophers are free to think about any and all things.  The weakness part is that this opens the door to folks who feel that they are bringing up deep and influential ideas that are usually trite and inconsequential. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • j153e
    Lv 7
    1 week ago

    Scientific activity often generates physical products or results.  If thinking about things doesn't generate physical items, then that activity seems irreal to people who treasure atomic things as the only reality of value.

    Related:

    The Slightest Philosophy.

    • ...Show all comments
    • j153e
      Lv 7
      1 week agoReport

      No question; the ontological and epistemological concern re designation of physis by reductive scientism as purely quantum/classical physics, etc., is simply the logic of bijective measurement:  if one confines physis to atoms, etc., then that is the metric in which theories are to be falsified.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Liz
    Lv 4
    1 week ago

    It is not bad to ask questions. I'm reminded of the prophet Habakkuk, who was so miserable about the conditions of his people he questioned God. (Habakkuk 1:1-3) Even Abraham questioned God when God decided to destroy the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18:22-33) However, keep in mind what Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 3:19 about human wisdom "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.”

    Philosophers and scientists are imperfect men thinking and speaking imperfectly. The Bible is God's word of truth and speaks the truth which is necessary for living and it has the answers to man's basic questions about life. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

    Source(s): jw.org/What Can the Bible Teach Us?
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 week ago

    No. Philosophy is good for science and helps it a lot but at the end of the day too much philosophising doesn't get much done and philosophers end up going round and round in circles while science makes a discovery.

  • 1 week ago

    If you think that all Science (with associated technique + technology) is necessarily good then you may not be a committed Emergency activist like those of us here.

    But we all have to have some commitment & some hope in technology & science,

    it can be agreed that our combined individual lives are having an influence on our location, & the wider atmosphere. IN Philosophy As-well-as science.

    This should be basic philosophy but such has not been systematically 

    or widely taught, with limited resources there are still many people 

    alive today who don't go to school & who won't have an education 

    while they live (still here is my own temptation to openly dissuade 

    those believers-in-simplicity who were either taught or have mistakenly 

    come-to-realise the fallacy of a closed technical education that justifies

    both science & its "technical order" say dreams of eternal consumer 

    wealth for all with it's philosophy justification of competitive -not yet 

    repetitive- learning thro education).

    So the scientists & followers become enamoured for mass Order 

    like A.I. & perpetual work as a "right" (or dream) which is shared 

    inclusively, in the humanities too - philosophy, sociology etc. 

    Consequently Philosophy education has lost it's way in all this 

    industrial competition for authority, fame & "wisdom notoriety" ; 

    Competing present trends of divisive Popular-ism 

    (= new ways of mass political criticism) is vying for authoritative 

    attention with both science & philosophy work ; while even younger 

    voices highlight the immediate emergency situation already 

    threatening human life. 

    SOME science  -"Environmental science"-  has been considering 

    the general environment for less than half a century now, unlike 

    philosophy which for hundreds^ (or thousands) of years has 

    been sleepwalking.. nowhere quickly. In effect this "philosophy-

    of-science"  has been waylaid & unsystematically held-back 

    from a more tentative,& critically-competitive amalgamation 

    with connected branches of education. Example, "Human rights" 

    is the new argumentative problem area where once there was 

    not any such thing... then uncritically & subjectively controlled by 

    common, feted superstition and superstitious faiths and traditions.

    The truth is that Both objective science AND philosophy have an 

    interest in ensuring sustainable benefits for both this world & 

    the environment of tomorrow. The history of human mistakes looming 

    large as one reason for not learning quick enough, not changing 

    quick enough for a realised but in effect an-as-yet unanticipated, 

    unseen, desperate future^^.

    A future of change, hopeful & sensitive change & sustainably overseen 

    by moderate science & explanatory philosophy.. In Service to us all, 

    humanity, it's worthwhile environment.

     ^ for At Least 300+ years, see the preface to the KR Popper's,  The Open

        Society and its Enemies, vol 1. 

    ^^  Perhaps not now so "desperate" (!).., see Greta Thunberg's

         first little booklet called,

         'No One is Too Small to Make a Difference'  (Penguin Books)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Hawking's radiation is hypothetical. A kind of astronomical philosophy applied to black-holes. Tyson knows both string theory and particle theory. Both Tyson and Steve are a product of speculation and utilize philosophy more than they think they do. They are not at odds they are complementary. There is only the mind, the body, the world, and others in it. Objectively, there isn't much of a difference between philosophical methods and hypothetical sciences.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.