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?
- 7 days ago
doesnt have to be, just like religion and philosophy dont have to be at odds either
- All hatLv 77 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.
- ☼ GƖơώ ✞ Ѡɪηǥs ☼Lv 71 week ago
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
- General ZodLv 71 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.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- runningman022003Lv 71 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.
- j153eLv 71 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.
The Slightest Philosophy.
- LizLv 41 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?
- QuentinLv 71 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.
- peter mLv 61 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)
- 𝕵𝖔𝖘𝖍 𝕬𝖑𝖋𝖗𝖊𝖉Lv 41 week ago
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.