Does Philosophy Help Science? | Episode 1612 | Closer To Truth

What constitutes good science? Are there limits to science? If so, what are the boundaries? How deep can science dig into the foundations of the world? Featuring interviews with Steven Weinberg, Paul Davies, Colin Blakemore, and Scott Aaronson.
Season 16, Episode 12 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
#Philosophy #Science Your source for the study of philosophy and college philosophy class materials.

[@jeancorriveau8686]

Philosophy will always have its place. Einstein's theory of relativity didn't answer what time is. It just describes how time works. Physicists and mathematicians are logical with their equations. They know how they work. Yet, those fields don't explain what logic is. Math and science are concerned with the 'how' while philosophy is concerned with the 'what' and the 'why'. There is an overlap between math and logic.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Science IS philosophy on Naturalistic Principles and with an Empirical Set of methodologies. The produced knowledge of science is and should be an essential step for all Philosophical inquiries. Aristotle knew that 2.000+ years ago!

[@jeancorriveau8686]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Right on! But most philosophers don't have enough knowledge of science. And scientists, not enough knowledge of philosophy. Some philosophical unanswered questions can be answered when science is introduced.

[@craigknepley6021]

You say philosophy is necessary to answer questions like “What is time?” and “What is logic?” These questions have multiple senses. You could be asking about the terms themselves, in which case the question would be one for linguists. You could be asking about the ways in which human beings experience these things, in which case the question would be one for neuroscientists. Or you could be asking about the nature of time and logic themselves-i.e. what facts there are to be discovered about these entities. This would be a question for scientists. I struggle to see a way of precisifying questions like “What is time?” and “What is logic?” that leaves room for philosophy. Unless you leave these questions in imprecise terms. Which renders them analogous to the question “How much does the color purple weigh?” Philosophy is either about concrete things (and so has been supplanted by science) or else is not about concrete things (and so is no different than theology). I do not see how sitting in an armchair leads to discoveries in the way experiments do.

[@efron2545]

@@craigknepley6021 linguistics is basically philosophy, I know many linguistics professors that recommend people to do an undergraduate in philosophy before doing a PhD in linguistics, Philosophy of language is basically one aspect of linguistics. Linguists and philosophers work together, and a philosopher can eventually be called a linguist and a linguist can be called a philosopher dependingon what they focus on. Just go look at noam chomsky as one example. Neuroscience hasn't given us a shred of development in consciousness. That's all in the philosophy of mind. Many have duel degrees in both, and those who do admit that consciousness is entirely in the realm of Philosophy.

[@rduse9197]

Everyone thinks differently for a reason. Working together is the way we will be able to measure this. People have to put down their ideas of what is right and what is wrong, because those are just illusion. You will never understand anything if you can't keep and open mind. I love science. Its how we measure life, and understanding the physical properties of nature and items. But science doesn't have enough quantifiable data to measure everything. A lot of scientists don't think this way, they think they can solve it all themselves, well it can help,but it won't make the cut. Just as philosophy hasn't really been measured, because we dont know how. Philosophy is a different way if thinking. Viewing different perspectives and looking at the unfathomable questions of life. These people have an amazing memory of history in most respects, and lessons learned through time, and what not to do. Others cannot keep up because they don't THINK the same. I know there is a link of these two though human emotion. That is what science needs to measure. It should not be Economists running the world. It should start with philosophical thought as a question, then science can try to measure this idea or question to put it in layman's terms so other can understand, that have other, JUST AS NEEDED SKILLSETS for human and spiritual growth. I say spiritual, because math,sciences,thought and how to manipulate items of the World, Stems from Religion. We cannot shove it aside and say it doesn't mean anything, because it is our roots. Do you really think people years ago made golden temples, beautiful pieces of art, and human history as we know it because....i don't know....cause they were bored? Lol. There houses were dirt, but temples were VERY RESPECTED. I think it is silly to think otherwise. Open your minds,Awaken to what has really happened in our history, and now, and you will see a MUCH Clearer Picture. Great talk guys! I enjoy watching other walks of life work together, its what we need.

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

The question is not if science is helped by philosophy, but if science is helped by "professional philosophers" -- people who do nothing but philosophy so that the rest of us don't have to worry about it. A better approach is that everyone should be a philosopher and be interested in the philosophical aspects of their discipline, and this is not something that should be outsourced to specialists who do the thinking for us.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

That is a great point. Professional philosophers are responsible for some major advances in our scientific thought but their contribution is really poor if you compare them to the complete body of our epistemology. Naturalism, Evidentialism, Consequentialism, Human Rights, Set theory, Modal logic, Bayesian Epistemology are some of their contributions, but it is always the work of those philosophers who are respectful of current science findings and established epistemology.

[@bertierajkumar]

👏

[@david5800]

Your point is interesting. The scientist must and has the right to seek or proclaim his philosophical freedom, to be free to interpret the implications of his own area, to construct a philosophical theory (in metaphysics, ontology, epistemology, etc.), to develop philosophical solutions to such profound issues and to follow your own philosophical project that will guide you in this search for knowledge. The scientist does not have to be dependent on the philosopher to philosophically analyze his field of action, just as the physicist is not dependent on those who came before to work his way. Another thing, the demystification of the figure of the philosopher as the subject who has the final say or who is the one who likes to meddle in everything will help to understand that science and philosophy are not antagonistic undertakings. This philosophical freedom that I mentioned at the beginning in no way means a threat to philosophy, it may mean a threat to traditional philosophies but for philosophy, in its entirety, it is far from being one. Despite the extensive criticism of metaphysics, the positivists (the same guys that the critics of philosophy use) were not able to end this discipline, from the 1960s onwards, positivism, verificationism and other principles of this (ironic) philosophical matrix they lost more and more relevance and ended up falling into disuse. Quine's fervent attacks on Kantian notions (such as analyticity and apriorism) and modal logic proved to be a great tantrum for this analytical logician and philosopher. I can list countless attacks on the matrices of philosophy that have failed, but that would no longer fit here. Finally, philosophy - like science - is averse to authorities (including that of philosophers) and needs the existence of innumerable ways of thinking in order to develop. (I already apologize in advance if my message appears to be grammatically weird, I'm a guy from Brazil who used Google translator to communicate) :)

[@JeffToff]

Easier said than done.

[@Eta_Carinae__]

I actually completely agree. I think it was Daniel Dennet who advised philosophers to hold a practise in one of the sciences. I think universities should only offer BAs in Philosophy as a double major with something else.

[@benediktnonnenbroich9074]

Google Translate is a manifestation of Wittgenstein’s theory of language

[@xspotbox4400]

Googlontology is a weird global phenomena.

[@roybecker492]

love the music on this episode

[@ThatisnotHair]

The question of "Why?" is always going to infinite regress. So philosophy is always going to exist on top to give a basis.

[@ForBreadAndFish]

Can't have an answer without a question.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

And you shouldn't try to answer all questions...not all questions are useful.(what is the taste of constipation ..for example...is a bad question).

[@buddhaneosiddhananda8499]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I'm sure you have some unanswered questions... what do you want to know..?

[@htftvid115]

Sir , a comment from a simple student from India , but I have reasons to say that you are mistaken , simply saying everything in subject matter of science can only be understand with relation to other things even the wave functions of things , the properties of a wave functions can only be defined by it's relationship to something external ( tht wave functions itself when not entangled with it's relationship to ........ Dash space , time and mass ) , this which is purely a philosophical claim . Another such claim that everything is a unity of opposites and that any movement of anything at all is possible is when the opposites meet . Philosophy and science can never be separated , they work together to make us step towards the truth , in subconscious level there is always a philosophy in a scientists mind which they don't justify as they don't think philosophy is not a good tool for justification so they never come to the knowledge of the philosophy that helped in their scientific discovery .

[@aleksandarzivkovic1792]

Although a worthwhile venture with some good points. A lot of follow up questions were missed. One might be "If scientists were better able to comunicate between their disciplines could we then consign philosophy to where it belongs?"

[@aiswariyasweety1517]

All great work in physics has started with resolving the inconsistencies and getting inspiration from philosophy

[@31428571J]

Excellent points from Paul Davies. It was philosophy that answered the most fundamental question of all: "Nothing comes from nothing" (Parmenides).

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

lol....yes philosophy can answer tautologies...haha. When your philosophy has data and can answer your questions, we call it science mate....

[@31428571J]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 Of course. But as you infer, data requires a positive state - a 'something'.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@31428571J Sure it requires "something". That doesn't change the fact that "Nothing comes from nothing" is a tautology and not only that is a poisoning the well fallacy. We don't know if nothing is a possible "state"in nature. We have never observed or verified "nothing". On the contrary, Quantum Fluctuations make "nothing" a bit impossible. Well "Nothing comes from nothing" is more of an answer for a begging the question fallacy. So as far as our scientific observations inform us, there was always something. The state of something(cosmic being) is eternal based on our current observations.

[@31428571J]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 'Nothing coming from nothing' should be obvious to anyone via a simple thought experiment I would have thought. Try thinking of everything and then switch it OFF. Or track back (retrograde) a gravitational singularity until it is no more. Sorry, but the scientific consensus of opinion is that time and space DO have a beginning, an origin. A past eternal universe is still up for debate (I agree with you though. Have to of course, since 'nothing' demands this:-). I have debated this (to me) non-issue with many qualified scientists (on the Guardian Science pages) over the past years. Many seem to adhere to the (to me, illogical) 'if there is nothing anything can happen' ideal - or positive state arguments, such as fundamental laws capable of doing anything and everything. Nothing is not a 'state', a moment, space (dimension/background), Laws, quantum fluctuations, matter, antimatter, or anything and EVERYTHING else. To image it as such is to contradict. One cannot even ascribe atemporality to it; as consciousness (a something) would be required. "We have never observed or verified "nothing" - this is why its out of the loop for science (my primary point) - and why its only philosophy than can answer this most fundamental of questions. The 'begging the question fallacy' might be valid for some, but for those of us who understand what the so-called 'nothing' is at the outset (autonomically?), we see its second instance as obvious (self-evident, and referring back to the first).

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@31428571J "'Nothing coming from nothing' should be obvious to anyone via a simple thought experiment I would have thought." -its a tautology, but we can not be absolutely sure about anything. But before that someone needs to define nothing because an empty box has nothing in it, and an empty patch of the space has nothing....until we observe the "Nobel awarded " Quantum Fluctuations. -" Try thinking of everything and then switch it OFF." -Yes I think I can do that...and we can say with certainty, that we have never observed "nothing". So we don't how possible this mental construct can be! -"Or track back (retrograde) a gravitational singularity until it is no more." -Quantum mechanics don't allow singularities, but I get your idea on "nothingness". We are pretty sure (based on our current facts) that its a bit nonsensical to talk about such a "non state". -"Sorry, but the scientific consensus of opinion is that time and space DO have a beginning, an origin." -Don't be sorry because the scientific consensus are addressing our local representation of the universe, not the Cosmos. Our frameworks point to an ever existing Cosmos or a preexisting medium where the process we identify as our Universe unravels (with a start and a possible end). -" A past eternal universe is still up for debate (I agree with you though. Have to of course, since 'nothing' demands this:-)." -I am not sure how relevant is a "past eternal universe"to our observations. Cosmic Quantum Fluctuations is a fact. Inflation theory point to models of a preexisting state. Krauss latest book "the greatest story ever told", presents all those insights based on our current understanding, our observations and our logical conclusions through Math. Check it out. "I have debated this (to me) non-issue with many qualified scientists (on the Guardian Science pages) over the past years." -What non issue is that? -"Many seem to adhere to the (to me, illogical) 'if there is nothing anything can happen' ideal - or positive state arguments, such as fundamental laws capable of doing anything and everything." -Well you will need to keep talking to them since I don't share their "philosophies". My position is of course metaphysical but they are well educate projections based on our current scientific epistemology. So we are talking about real Philosophy. -"Nothing is not a 'state', a moment, space (dimension/background), Laws, quantum fluctuations, matter, antimatter, or anything and EVERYTHING else. " -Sure this is why it is irrational to assume nothing possible. We don't have a single example in the universe of nothingness, even the spaces fills with quantum fluctuations. -"To image it as such is to contradict." -we can do anything with our imagination, but we need to use the correct vocabulary. Nothing is not a state of being about the cosmos....nothing is non being by definition. -" One cannot even ascribe atemporality to it; as consciousness (a something) would be required." -Since consciousness is a biological process it demands existence and of course time. -""We have never observed or verified "nothing" - this is why its out of the loop for science (my primary point) - and why its only philosophy than can answer this most fundamental of questions." -No. If we don't have observations, we can say nothing about this ....non existential claim. Well to be true we can try to give an answer to this question, but without epistemology we would be practicing pseudo philosophy and the answer would have an unknown truth value. So we are back to the question without achieving anything to answer it. BTW.....whether nothingness is "the most fundamental of questions" is a false evaluation. How to organize equal and just societies is a far more important and fundamental one. How can we get rid of our current pseudo philosophical social organization systems (Politics/economics) is a far more essential and fundamental question. Taking positions on a made up question that we can not verify ....well that feels more like some type of mental masturbation in my opinion. -"The 'begging the question fallacy' might be valid for some, but for those of us who understand what the so-called 'nothing' is at the outset (autonomically?), we see its second instance as obvious (self-evident, and referring back to the first)." -whether we understand the term or not is irrelevant. It all has to do with logic and its basic rules. We are unable to connect A(nothingness) and B (state) so its irrational to even speculate about it. The null hypothesis points to the rejection of any connection until we are able to falsify that initial rejection. So nothing is rejected as a "possible" state until we provide evidence to falsify this rejection. Logic 101.

[@domcasmurro2417]

I think we should use all human potential in the search for truth. Be arrogant is pointless.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

Applied Science is the king of science.

[@alphaomega1089]

It is easier to be a scientist than a philosopher. You'll have a narrower field to study. You can advance that field far quicker with your total focus placed there. A philosopher must have 360-degree vision. It must learn how to interact without disturbance. A scientist can explore uncharted areas and build anew or uncover hidden gems not yet seen by the philosopher. I merely question why academic scientists hate philosophy; theology; and, social studies. I now know the answer: they are afraid of the unknown. They hate not being able to see clearly what is going on. At least they are willing to build microscopes and telescopes to improve that vision. I embrace all of the philosophical questions about the nature of things because it encompasses all things -- including the concept of a god. We hold no fear as it is our minds that recreates all we see and imagine (and boy can we imagine). To do without philosophy is to abandon reason and logic. Yes, this is the truth behind what we are. However, the universe took a gamble and it paid off for the philosopher (we got time to think).

[@Bldyiii]

Yes.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

I was bummed out when scrolling through your episodes and couldn’t find Stephen Meyer. 😢

[@archimedes2261]

Without philosophy, physical Scientists have no one to raise fundamental questions that leads to extraordinary discoveries.

[@craigknepley6021]

Sitting in an armchair does not generate discoveries. Experiments do.

[@danie7kovacs]

@@craigknepley6021 what sort of experiment prove this? Or were you just typing it out of your armchair?

[@clarkharney8805]

the laws of physics change not when time changes but when the universe does. Similarly, when I think that I formerly thought to decided to make the first sentence of this monologue a non-sentence by not capitalizing the first letter, I indeed broke the laws of grammar by my own power to will in accordance to my self-consciousness experiences and the drives of my own subconscious. To break the laws of physics would, in theory; might entail a new universe. But what if our own universe changes so much that the physics by which it operates change in and of themselves or cease to exist altogether? I’m still thinking about this :)

[@alainbellemare2168]

Don t forget that the universe is the container and the content, the universe qualities are intrinsically embeded in the fondamental content

[@benquinney2]

Things touching each other

[@husnainyousaf3236]

If Philosophy cannot help in working of science or methodology of science, it can definitely help the science in use of scientific innovations and discoveries. One will find Philosophy at merging point of morality and applications of science.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

The meaning of meaning

[@jasonaus3551]

Philosophy existed without science but Science could not exist without philosophy

[@khaderlander2429]

My understanding of philosophy is if one doesn't use his mind, someone will abuse his mind.

[@alvaroxex]

Philosophy created science.

[@thriceconcussed1]

Yeah, some Greek guy invented the concept of taxonomic classification for the animal kingdom, and is commonly considered to be the father of the natural sciences. There was also that David Hume guy who devoted the original arguments for empiricism (the foundational argument for "empirical science"). For a more recent example I would point out that Thomas Kuhn came up with the notion of a "paradigm shift"-- which is ubiquitous in contemporary scientific literature. Scientists study specific phenomena, within a particular field, and together they combine the respective works of colleagues in that field to argue what the world is like within the bounds of a particular features of the universe that falls within the scope of their discipline. The role of philosophy is to take the explanations of specific features of the universe given by the various sciences, and match them up to form an overall picture of reality (an "ontology"). Scientists do not have the time to submit the theories of physics to a logical analysis of their claims when compared to the claims of biology, given what the theories over in biology say, to see if the claims in sociology are valid.

[@RoqueMatusIII]

Exactly I was going to go deep into it. 👏🏽 but you said it perfectly!

[@RoqueMatusIII]

Philosophy is always a good bet, because at the very foundation of it, it would give us a none 0% chance of Philosophy never being used to help science. Just from the fact that people question their environment, they then go experiment and realize patterns. If you don’t ask any question and have any hypothesis then at the end of it all. You wouldn’t even start!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Philosophy evolved in to science. Natural selection produced science as the most epistemically capable (fit) way to produce wise claims about the world. Academic Philosophy was left behind.....its poor epistemic contribution is reflective of its failure to evolve.

[@patmoran5339]

Nickolas Gaspar So is epistemology real?

[@ZoiusGM]

8:15 They are connected to each other. If scientists, psychological, neurobiological human beings want to observe the time as in physics, their concepts and views are going to be dependent on, influenced by, limited by their psychological notion of time.

[@benjiedrollinger990]

Physicists all sound like philosophers when asked about the fine tuning of the universe. 😂

[@nyworker]

Chomsky is right by studying language. All of The Sciences, Philosophy and Math are actually forms of language, and language is actually knowledge. The deepest understanding of language and meaning, which is also physics and biological will eventually yield the truth and unify all of the fields.

[@username6135]

I don't think most people know what philosophy is. It's not really some bearded man staring at clouds or Harry Potter. Here's a simple small intro: Analytic philosophy is a branch and tradition of philosophy using analysis which is popular in the Western World and particularly the Anglosphere, which began around the turn of the 20th century in the contemporary era and continues today. In the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Scandinavia, the majority of university philosophy departments today identify themselves as "analytic" departments.[1] Central figures in this historical development of analytic philosophy are Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Other important figures in its history include the logical positivists (particularly Rudolf Carnap), W. V. O. Quine, Saul Kripke, and Karl Popper. Analytic philosophy is characterized by an emphasis on language, known as the linguistic turn, and for its clarity and rigor in arguments, making use of formal logic and mathematics, and, to a lesser degree, the natural sciences.[2][3][4] It also takes things piecemeal, in "an attempt to focus philosophical reflection on smaller problems that lead to answers to bigger questions."[5][6] Analytic philosophy is often understood in contrast to other philosophical traditions, most notably continental philosophies such as existentialism, phenomenology, and Hegelianism.[7]

[@gilliancockroft562]

And vice versa .

[@buddhaneosiddhananda8499]

Truth is not new, but science is... truth is eternal, science by its very nature is ephemeral...

[@deepakkapurvirtualclass]

Let's go in distant future. Let's assume that Science has discovered all the fundamental particles/concepts that explain this universe completely. I think.. 1. These fundamental particles/concepts will have to be taken as a 'given' (with no further explanation possible). 2. This is the ultimate future of science...to reach at something, which has to be taken as a 'given'.

[@owencampbell4947]

I think there are too many fallacies about Philosophy. My opinion, philosophers are thinker's, true philosophers are special kind of thinkers, they always have that feeling and perception that leads them to the searched unknown, with almost precise statement. I am not talking about wannabe philosophers. I would describe scientists as the practical mind work executers, and philosophers as the theoretical designers. All in all we have to start with us humans, to complete open questions that are not possible to be answered, unless we know what is blocking the missing knowledge. If we keep training our minds to be free from influenced informations and develope a comfortable way to use some informations as tools to the new perspective and understanding, we could go new ways and come closer to truth. Philosophy is the window to the workshop, it definitely belong together.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Unfortunately , philosophy is a fuzzy label. Many pseudo philosophical principles and ideas try to hide under the umbrella of Philosophy. The fact is that only one type of Philosophy (Methodological Naturalism) have managed to produce wise claims about the world and specific fields that are descriptive (i.e. Philosophy of Science, of Mind, of Language etc). Academic Philosophy and most "professional" philosophers are not part of this valuable effort

[@owencampbell4947]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 I think its wrong to say there's only one type of philosophy. The word itself describes thinking of everything, the universe, our being, love, and many other topics. So who decides what is wise and fundamental for philosophy, if questions are still open and never answered?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@owencampbell4947 I didn't say that. There are, unfortunately, many types of philosophy, but only those based on specific philosophical principles and with a huge respect to science and logic have managed to stay faithful to the goal of this intellectual endeavor. -" The word itself describes thinking of everything, the universe, our being, love, and many other topics." -The etymology of the word it self states its goal which is "The Production of Wise claims about everything we can think of". In order for a claim to be wise it needs to be a conclusion based on knowledge and facts about the world. So nobody decides what is wise or not....the evidence, facts and our knowledge do that. i.e. Time is not constant is a wise claim/conclusion/statement based on the facts and knowledge about how gravity acts on the ticking(pace) of processes. By using this wise claim we managed to explain many things (Muons on the surface of the earth) and produce technical applications (GPS devices). -"if questions are still open and never answered?" -We now can evaluate which questions are not wise or reasonable. Fallacious questions, teleological questions that beg the question are not philosophical questions. So "open" or not answered questions need to be evaluated before someone tries to answer them. So the issue is not how many Philosophies do we think there should be....but how many Logic allows .

[@owencampbell4947]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 You decide about wise claims, what has wise claims to do with philosophical thinking? that's in your influenced mind, there can be wrong philosophical thinking, is that what you mean about intellectual superiority? Logic doesn't come from teaching, you have it or not.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@owencampbell4947 " You decide about wise claims" -Sorry mate...its not my call. i.e. Our knowledge about Gravity , the electromagnetic cohesion of molecules and the floor your apparent is located "decides" whether the claim "use your window to exit the building" to be wise or not. So again , Its knowledge Philosophy needs to produce Wise claims about the world. -"what has wise claims to do with philosophical thinking? " -Again....this is the goal of Philosophical Thinking on the first place. (Philosophy=Philos sophia/φίλος σοφίας, Love of Wisdom) -" that's in your influenced mind, there can be wrong philosophical thinking, is that what you mean about intellectual superiority?" -lol, There isn't a right or wrong philosophical thought. You either do philosophy by using established knowledge and testable philosophical principles or you do pseudo philosophy and you produce thoughts lacking wisdom and knowledge. -"Logic doesn't come from teaching, you have it or not." Of course logic comes by learning the rules criteria and principles of Basic Reasoning. Parsimony, Demarcation, Burden of Proof, Null hypothesis, the 3 logical absolutes and Fallacies are all the result of us studying and learning about the rules and relations in the empirical world. They are academic courses on logic that help you to reason mate....

[@yours_debbie]

Can someone enlighten me more about this, "Science is related to philosophy but philospphy is an instrument to know the truth using human reason. It starts with a question, followed by an inquiry, and it end with a truth.".

[@millerstation92]

Good philosophy can only provide questions, not answers.

[@jayaramj8497]

philosophy is the study of fundamentals...of reality, knowledge.... what is mathematics, why is it true? what are numbers ?...these are all philosophical questions. dont you think that is important? when we ask fundamental questions we cant always progress like experimental or empirical sciences because we are dealing with reasoning and the nature of understanding. it works at a meta level. dont confuse these very high level thinking with continental philosophy.

[@repubblesmcglonky8990]

It's my understanding that it's not so much Philosophy that can help Science, but Meticulous, Objective, Empiricable and even *Scientific* Meta-Philosophy and Meta-Philosophies...

[@TEE19622]

Does entropy mean we are closer to truth at birth than after a lifetime of learning??

[@rl7012]

Good point. It would appear it does. So if we are closer to truth at birth, but unable to comprehend that we are closer to truth when we are that stage, suggests that being aware of how close we are to truth that we may think we are is no measure at all how close to truth we actually are.

[@marineboyecosse]

Science is primarily a methodology. In order to implement that methodology, it needs to be informed by sponsoring concepts, some of which will not be demonstrated by the methodology at the time the methodology is implemented. Science is not a value-neutral activity, as no such human activity is possible. Thus it is always going to be necessary to have "guiding ideas / intuitions / sponsoring thoughts / held viewpoints / dogmatic worldviews / metaphysical positions" whatever you want to call it, in order for this process to be viable. Are there limits to the methodology itself? Yes there are. Science can't explain why pain is the experience that it is. It can only explain the "how-able" dynamics of that experience (You have an infection, which causes a swelling, the swelling creates pressure and over-excites nerve endings, which send signals to the brain and etc, etc, etc). In the methodology of science as presently practiced, there is also a kind of implicit or background assumption of "objective reality." That there is a world out there separate from consciousness. This began to run into some problems with the onset of quantum mechanics, though many people still try to maintain a kind of physical realism despite the fact that (in principle at least) it has already been violated in spirit. There is also another whole area where science doesn't do well at its current methodology, and that is "investigating the nature of one's own being" which has been an eastern tradition for thousands of years. This also contains potentially real things which nonetheless are not really capturable, as such, by scientific methodology, at least as currently described. In short, any change that will be required to our concept of an objective physical world (the basic sponsoring thought for most of science in the last three hundred years) is going to have serious knock-on effects for any new or expanded form of methodology which will need to come into being.

[@thriceconcussed1]

Thank you! From my perspective, having a BA in philosophy, scientists who argue that philosophy is irrelevant to their overall project are misunderstanding the overall purpose of investigating physical phenomena. Humanity uses the scientific method to form theories from empirical observations, and use those theories throughout the scientific disciplines to form an ontology that describes what we reality is like given the evidence. Science is a tool that has to be itself justified, and that tool can only build part of our overall ontology, since science is limited to claims which can be verified through empirical methods.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

No science is not "primarily a methodology". If you believe that, then you might never heard about Scientific Theories or Scientific Hypotheses or Scientific Interpretations. Science is the best way to do Philosophy.Its the only philosophical category with a method capable to evaluate the truth value of our theoretical frameworks. This is what philosophy is for, to produce wise claims/arguments about the word. How on earth can you do that without knowing the truth value of your premises.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@Al Garnier science has empirical methodologies but also has its theoretical aspect. In science we construct a hypothesis and test it. So primarily we have frameworks in science....and theb our empirical methodologies kick in. So you need to pay more attention to what I write and take a course on Philosophy of science.....

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@Al Garnier no their isn't such a a thing as a standardized scientific method. You can actually look those things up mate. Your internet connection is not only for porn. You can actually challenge what you believe. Science has numerous approaches. Great example Einstein's theory of relativity. It didn't follow the "poem" people learn about science's steps.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@Al Garnier "The scientific method is a standardized way of making observations, gathering data, forming theories, testing predictions, and interpreting results!" " -No. Take a course on Philosophy of science. There is nothing "standardized" that resembles a method. www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/problems-scientific-method www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-scientific-method-is-a-myth HPS100 Trailer - Why History & Philosophy of Science? kzbin.info/www/bejne/rHLaZniup62cppY The specific point in time has all the myths about science.(right column second raw is your myth of method). Introduction to Philosophy of Science. Lecture 1, part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoGbpZiLnL-WeLs theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-the-scientific-method-and-why-do-so-many-people-get-it-wrong-65117 Systematicity: The Nature of Science kzbin.info/www/bejne/sIquaKiehsSEec0&t= -"If you don't agree, I suggest you look it up. " -Yes you should! try the courses and links I just posted. -"That is the "definition" of the science method, dipshit! I think you are lying if you said you ever looked it up. " - I appreciate your self critique. -"What's this "we" when you refer to science?" -The human race........... -"You are as lacking in common sense, as you are in scientific knowledge if, you don't even know it's "description"." -ITs funny how certain you appear for this myth lol....I must see your face when you take those courses on philosophy of science...well you won't ....your cognitive dissonance won't let you acknowledge your ignorance on the subject....(No one does...even if a science holding a fish with an inscription "there is no standard scientific method" hit them in the face lol). "Philosophy, without science, is just more religious voodoo from ignorance! " -We totally agree on that. We can not have science without philosophy and philosophy without science is ...pseudo philosophy at best. Science is the best way to do philosophy...and that is based on the epistemic success of science..not a biased arbitrary opinion. -"Neuro sciences are scientifically based" -Well its Neuroscience and its not "scientifically based"....it is a scientific discipline it self! lol -"they will discover the proper proceedures and drugs to help cure the feral emotions of uneducated people."" -lol that is technically outside the field of neuroscience(medicine).....Lobotomy can cure feral emotions...like yours about the mythical "method of science"! Uneducated people can only be treated by watching academic material...so watch those courses. -" Fear and ignorance can only be cure by education and knowledge." -We agree! " That's when you discover that there's nothing to fear but, fear itself..and ignorance!" -Cool stuff......and deep meanings ! lol Pls educate your self and serve science properly! Science is the best way we currently have to produce knowledge....So respect that knowledge and use academic material to learn about this intellectual tool mate! Cheers.

[@rduse9197]

Philosophy is not a dead idea, people just dont know how to quantify it yet as a unit of measure. This is extremely hard to do I imagine, because I have no idea how u build that idea. I am very philosophical myself, and I would love to see more people in higher areas of leadership. A lot of philosophical ideas have been by observing, but not always with the emotional experience. I tried to take a different approach in life. To bare the bad and the good with my own mind and heart. Emotion is a necessary ingredient to the human condition. It is quantifiable and necessary. I did not always understand this statement. I love science as well. Critical thought with science and math (wish I was better at that) are JUST AS Essential as the other. I believe we all think differently for a reason, and we need to work together to move forward. The only things stopping it are: Luxurious living in some countries, insecurities formed by society, movies, games, false info, and Mostly by: The RIGHT To Speak Ones Mind WITHOUT Persecution. If you want the peoples trust, you have to include them in World Issues. NOT BY MEDIA SOURCES, ONLY DIRECTLY BY PEOPLE CURRENTLY IN CHARGE OF BIG MOVEMENTS. There had to be transparency with the Public and Governments. It Will not happen otherwise.

[@ApplepieFTW]

According to the scientist: no According to the philosopher: yes

[@alvaroxex]

yes and no

[@gedde5703]

According to scientists who are *also* philosophers: definitely.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

According to Philosophy of science.....science is the best way to do philosophy!

[@bocelott]

Literally every discipline--math, logic, computer science, physics, sociology, politics, (most recently) gender theory, etc--came out of philosophy. Most of these systems start off as mostly "rational", based in ideas and reasoning. Then once the ideas are picked up and empirically tested, the field is able to shift towards gathering more physical evidence. At that point it becomes a "science". But no doubt philosophy continues to inform all fields. What are Einstein's thought experiments if not philosophy?

[@username6135]

Does philosophy help science? I don't know. Aristotle, Hume, Leibniz, Kant, Spinoza, Russell, etc. It's truly hard to imagine a physicist, especially one in a powerful position, who's unfamilair with philosophy. It's like a mathematician who can't read. So it's not like physicists exist in a void and are immune to the negative effects of philosophy. I'm not a physicist but I sure hope those who are can keep our power in check because personally I'm leaning towards solar electric. Hope that's not too abstract... :)) PSS 3:00 Russell demolished 20 years of Frege's work with 1 sentence.

[@hectorhernandez215]

Science Is a Philosophy....

[@TEE19622]

Steel not put to the fire lacks strength.

[@behrad9712]

It's brilliant...! in these days of slaving of science...

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Said the dude by using the fruits of science (his device hook on the net)lol You are strawmanning what science really is mate...

[@mikelollar3157]

I was a big fan of the original versions of "Closer To Truth." These longer versions feel over-produced and too time-consuming.

[@alvaroxex]

What did I just fucking read ? LOL. That's his thing. Get a life.

[@spracketskooch]

Not gonna get to interesting questions let alone answers without putting in some time. A half an hour is really the barest minimum.

[@stuartmaclean8668]

As the progenitor of the Big Bang Hypernova Hypothesis my work gives full answer to the questions you are asking. Fractal geometry where self-similar patterns replicate themselves at any scale is the one and only assumption. But to see the pattern of the Big Bang Hypernova at the human scale is something truly divine.

[@ThePresident001]

But can it run Crysis?

[@martinwilliams9866]

As the progenitor of Klien bottle space-time cosmology, I think you're wrong!

[@philipvlnst]

1) What makes science science is a philosophical question and not a scientific question; 2) Why is our "notion of Truth" mostly scientific?- is another philosophical question; 3) What qualifies as "empirical evidence" is another philosophical question; 4) Does science deal only with empirical evidence?; 5) Heisenberg principle of uncertainty- what does that tell us about the epistemology of science?

[@craigknepley6021]

If you’re right, then this means philosophy is ill-defined. Besides, most of these questions are analogous to the question “How much does the color purple weigh?” If everything counts as philosophy, then so much the worse for philosophy.

[@SandipChitale]

A new thought about something which will eventually become a new scientific theory starts in the realm of philosophy. I think of philosophy as a way of rigorous and disciplined thinking. I think that kind of philosophy is a given, obviously helpful and even required to do new scientific thinking as well as clarifying and interpreting the observations after the fact. I doubt many scientists will have issue with that. IMO it is once again a case of "Philosophy" being a very board term. A lot of people do "Theology" call it "Philosophy" and want the scientists to accept it because it is "Philosophy" according to them. Well, I am with scientists who reject that type of "Philosophy' which really is "Theology" masquerading. So may be the time has come to ask the question more precisely. "Does Scientific Philosophy (a name for the rigorous and disciplined thinking about the physical universe) help science?" And most likely the answer will be resounding YES! There is even a CTT episode called: What is Philosophy of Science? - kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6fanICunMabd5Y Therefore, this episode is a case of ill formed question.

[@anaskb1798]

That was well worded.

[@ApplepieFTW]

Well said

[@benquinney2]

Old school

[@JeffToff]

False premise: Philosophy came before science. Thales, the earliest person referenced by the philosophical cannon, was primarily concerned with physics. His theories about how the world worked sound strange to us today but they are early attempts at science. The engineers of ancient buildings, metals and other technologies were obviously working with the best science of the day. There are many other examples, and this pattern may extend far into our ancient past - philosophy is not possible without language, but science only requires examples and the accumulation of knowledge through social structures - science may have been possible amoung pre-linguistic man.

[@davidtindall5847]

Any debate about philosophy or science involves concepts developed by early philosophers, especially Aristotle. You can't even discuss the merits of science without philosophic categories!

[@uremove]

Since the “Science Wars” of the 1990s, Natural Science has got all self-protective by being dismissive of Social Science and Humanities like Philosophy (and I speak as an ex-Natural Scientist). Hence Steven Weinberg’s comments. His example of Continental Philosophy obfuscating Newtonian gravity omits to mention that Descartes model of gravity was much closer to Einstein’s model of Space/Time as an explanation of gravity. Raising sceptical objections like “action at a distance” was a clue that there was more to discover. Science does not operate in a bubble, and issues like the “Replication Crisis” should wake all scientists up to the fact that they operate in a social, epistemological and philosophical context, which may distort what gets published. Can’t we learn from other diverse perspectives, rather than seeing them as a threat? Seems we must fight to compete when there’s real issues like funding at stake. That’s perhaps more of an issue.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

"Natural Science has got all self-protective by being dismissive of Social Science and Humanities like Philosophy " -That is a sad fact. I understand that Academic Philosophy under-performs for ...thousands of years in the field of epistemology , but social sciences are a great tool to understand our self. We even have technical applications like Marketing that take advantage of what we learn from Social Sciences. -"His example of Continental Philosophy obfuscating Newtonian gravity omits to mention that Descartes model of gravity was much closer to Einstein’s model of Space/Time as an explanation of gravity. " -Well not really Einstein's theory combined those two ideas. -"Raising sceptical objections like “action at a distance” was a clue that there was more to discover. " -Science is nothing more than a Philosophical category with a methodology. You can not have a method without its theory, so you can not have science without philosophy. The issue raises with Academic philosophy and professional philosophers...and how poor their epistemic contributions are in relation to those of scientists. "Science does not operate in a bubble, and issues like the “Replication Crisis” should wake all scientists up to the fact that they operate in a social, epistemological and philosophical context, " -That is a correct statement. The problem with this acknowledgement is that with philosophy there are so many rubbish speculations masquerading as such. By acknowledging is not only a part, but a basic tool of science, all this bovine manure will start making claims for their "scientific nature". That is a problem created by Academic philosophy with its politics in favor of "free inquiry" and "unmonitored peer reviewed puplications" and low standards of evidence in general. " Can’t we learn from other diverse perspectives, rather than seeing them as a threat?" -I don't see them as diverse perspectives but as complementary intellectual tools. Diverse perspectives are problematic, specially when based on unfounded philosophical principles. This actually was the reason why science was forced to abandon the sinking ship of Philosophy in the first place.

[@uremove]

Nickolas Gaspar How has Academic Philosophy “underperformed”? By what measure? The work of Philosophers like Bacon or Popper or Kuhn, or Lakatos underpin modern Science. How was a “scientific method” developed...? On what grounds can we justify a theory...? How does science make progress...? How do we demarcate science from pseudoscience..? All these are philosophical achievements, not scientific ones. LOL! I’m sure “Social Sciences are a great tool to understand our self”... but that doesn’t stop many in the natural sciences being dismissive! You know about the Allan Sokal affair? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair I think it’s a similar myth that academic Philosophy has “underperformed”. Re: Descartes theory gravity... yes, of course he didn’t crack Relativity, but he did raise the problem of mechanism, and made an attempt at explanation (not a million miles from Einstein’s ideas of Space/Time). My point is this is not “philosophical obfuscation” as Weinberg is asserting. As for “diverse perspectives” vs. “complimentary tools”, I think your view that the first is problematic is based on an assumption of “one truth”, rather than “many perspectives”. Post modernism is here, even in Science. Is D.S. Wilson’s “Multi-Level Selection” better than Dawkins “Gene Centred” evolution? Is the “Many Worlds Interpretation” better than the “Copenhagen Interpretation” or maybe “Pilot Wave” or the “Transactional Model” in QM? It’s only narrowness of vision that would designate Philosophy as a “sinking ship”. Many scientists eg. Carlo Rovelli, Sean Carroll etc. I’m pleased to see, are now embracing Philosophy, and seeing science as part of a much bigger picture.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@uremove " How has Academic Philosophy “underperformed”? By what measure?" -Easy , epistemic contribution. Philosophy's contributions can be measured in 1-2 hands...while science run away success has shaped our modern world. -"The work of Philosophers like Bacon or Popper or Kuhn, or Lakatos underpin modern Science.' -That's part of Philosophy of science and its a Normative critique, which is useless when compared to Descriptive Science(by great philosophers like Paul Hoyningen) . Philosophy of science is helpful for me and you to understand HOW science work, not for scientists to "change" their methodologies. So again Normative science never affected the way science is done and Descriptive is a tool for us to understand why science is so Successful. -"How was a “scientific method” developed...?" -Logic and philosophy within the scientific disciplines.....Attention don't try to conflate Academic Philosophy with Natural Philosophy (Science). -"On what grounds can we justify a theory...? " -Empirical evidence. The theory is the philosophical part of science. Again theories developed by science had high epistemic success while Academic philosophy struggles with useless teleological idea "why are we here", idealism, solipsism, supernaturalism etc. How long will this continue? After 2.300 years of epistemic failure....why people still feel the need to promote looser horses (idealism/supernaturalism). How does science make progress...? -Truth successful auxiliary principles (Methodological Naturalism), respect of logic and high standards of evidence. -" How do we demarcate science from pseudoscience..?" -By identifying systematicity and 9 more quality aspects in scientific epistemology. -"All these are philosophical achievements, not scientific ones." -Academic Philosophy offered two great ideas. Naturalism and Evidentialism. The rest body of knowledge is product of the philosophy of Methodological Naturalism....not Academic Philosophy's . -"LOL! I’m sure “Social Sciences are a great tool to understand our self”... but that doesn’t stop many in the natural sciences being dismissive! " -Scientists don't choose which disciplines are scientific and which are not. Again Systematicity and the main 9 aspects of scientific knowledge is how we define science. "Re: Descartes theory gravity... yes, of course he didn’t crack Relativity, but he did raise the problem of mechanism, and made an attempt at explanation (not a million miles from Einstein’s ideas of Space/Time). My point is this is not “philosophical obfuscation” as Weinberg is asserting." -That doesn't change the fact that Methodological Naturalism is doing all the hard work in our epistemology...not academic philosophy where are loosers "professional" philosophers are trying to promote their magical worldviews. We have great exceptions like John Searl and Ayn Rand and Dennett etc etc, but that doesn't change the failure of philosophy outside Methodological Naturalistic principles. "As for “diverse perspectives” vs. “complimentary tools”, I think your view that the first is problematic is based on an assumption of “one truth”, rather than “many perspectives”." -No, all are relative to our and our methods nature. CAN WE verify those diverse perspectives? If not then they are useless. They could be correct, but without objective and sufficient evidence they are useless. -" Post modernism is here, even in Science. Is D.S. Wilson’s “Multi-Level Selection” better than Dawkins “Gene Centred” evolution? " - Again...evidence and i am with you mate......objective sufficient evidence. Until then, the acceptance of those claims with out evidence is an irrational act (not wrong). -" Is the “Many Worlds Interpretation” better than the “Copenhagen Interpretation” or maybe “Pilot Wave” or the “Transactional Model” in QM?" -Those are interpretations mate....metaphysics. We accept neither as theory, you know why? Because we still call them all ...interpretations. -" It’s only narrowness of vision that would designate Philosophy as a “sinking ship”." -Nope, its an accurate description based on objective facts. Philosophy outside the principles of Methodological Naturalism is an epistemic failure...historically and in the modern era. You will need to provide evidence of established theories based on non naturalistic principles capable to produce meaningful descriptions, testable predictions and technical applications...can you? even just one example mate! -"Many scientists eg. Carlo Rovelli, Sean Carroll etc. I’m pleased to see, are now embracing Philosophy, and seeing science as part of a much bigger picture." -Yes, I follow them and I am a fan of philosophy....but what you are trying to present as philosophy...is just pseudo philosophy mate. Science IS PHILOSOPHY.....just the best way to do philosophy. Aristotle identified Physika (modern science) as the second most important step in all philosophical endeavors. What you are promoting has nothing to do with philosophy mate...sorry.

[@uremove]

Nickolas Gaspar Ayn Rand!? Ah... all becomes clear! Your philosophical influences such as Ayn Rand and Paul Hoyningen-Huene are... interesting. As is your view that Philosophy has had little influence in shaping our world! Hard to justify the claim that that is “fact” - at best it’s opinion (and I’d suggest not one shared by very many). However, I’ve gotta go and do stuff, but I’ll try and reply more fully later.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@uremove lol....

[@CarlosElio82]

Philosophy labors the field of the possible maps that exist between the relationships among objects and corresponding relationships among numbers. The relationship among the mass of objects represented by numbers according to measurement, is additive; but the relationship of the temperature of the same objects, also according to measurement, is not additive. The mapping of those relationships onto the numbers is different. The constraints imposed by the valid relationships among numbers, filter out the noise of rhetoric that verbose philosophers use to mask their ignorance. I kid you not. Witness the clash between Max Tegmark and Tim Maudlin over the primacy of numbers in the configuration of the universe. It should not be allowed to ignore the role mathematics plays in our shared understanding of the universe (personal revelations are another thing) when discussing the frontier between philosophy an science. Politicians thrive in misunderstanding; philosophers are not politicians.

[@martinwilliams9866]

The argument is a false dichotomy as Science is based on the Philosophy of Empiricism, so isn't really separate from Philosophy. Also Physicalism isn't directly Science, but Philosophy. Science & Philosophy are not the same, but their also not different, think of overlapping sets. Consciousness is meta-experience, all things experience, it's causality, interaction, action-reaction, responsiveness, the essence of physicality.

[@benquinney2]

Scientism

[@kimsahl8555]

Does ph help sci. - yes and no. Does sci. help ph - yes and no.

[@alikarimi-langroodi5402]

Does philosophy help science? kzbin.info/www/bejne/paHOmn18it6Yg9U It is the other way round, it is science that is helping philosophy. Philosophy is a way of thinking. Science is about measurements. The two are totally different subjects in observing the truth. The right way of thinking has always been inspired by God. Measurements are a long way off from the 100% certainty, which is what we are after ultimately. But will we ever get there with numbers? I personally doubt it. Black and white, that is numbers, are way off colours. We need a different eye to see real colours; we need the eyes with ‘Baseerat’. We are talking about an unlimited being. You thought going to Mars would solve our problems? Think again.

[@TheTroofSayer]

Scientists without philosophy are technicians. Philosophers without science are speculators. The genius of Isaac Newton was that he was both a scientist and a philosopher. The axiomatic framework that Newton provided for the physical sciences could not have been arrived at without a synthesis of scientific and philosophical analysis. Philosophy addresses the question... are we making the right assumptions? The life sciences (and that includes consciousness science) do not yet have an axiomatic framework. In Darwinian natural selection, they have mechanism, but not a paradigm. In order to arrive at an axiomatic framework for the life sciences, entropy needs to be properly accounted for. In this regard, Darwinism, and especially NEO-Darwinism, has been sloppy and unscientific. That's because Darwinians are technicians, not scientists. What are the assumptions that we should be making in the life sciences? That's a question of both philosophy AND science. Let us now take it a step further. Let's say that a Newton-like genius accounts for a brilliant, final life science that hangs together, without any contradictions. Can we then abandon philosophy for all time? If a final life science factors in culture (as it should), then no, we cannot abandon philosophy, ever, because culture is dynamic, and our assumptions as to what constitutes reality are ever-changing. The CV-19 crisis, for example, has changed our assumptions about the safe, secure, mathematically sound, "anti-fragile" reality that preceded it. Scientists without philosophy will always remain mere technicians.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Science is the best chance we have to receive answers to our philosophical questions. Philosophy is the only way we have to interpret our scientific foundings.

[@showponyexpressify]

Karl Popper didn't provide much assistance 😂

[@benquinney2]

A working computer

[@danzigvssartre]

Many in the physicalist/materialism camp should read some philosophy.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

I am not sure that you understand what philosophy really is. All philosophical worldviews (materialism, idealism, supernaturalism, physicalism) are pseudo philosophies. There is only one type of Philosophy faithful to the goals of philosophy ( the production of wise claims about the world) and that's Methodological Naturalism.

[@danzigvssartre]

Nickolas Gaspar Wow! You just decided to define what is philosophy by your own silly definition. I guess Socrates should have just waited for you to come along?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@danzigvssartre lol No sir. Philosophy is defined by the freaking etymology of the word it self..if you were never taught about it. Philosophy is the intellectual endeavor which goal is to Produce Wise Claims about the World ( literally Love of Wisdom). So by using logic and our brains and facts we see that the only Philosophical category able to do that (only for the.....last 600 years) is that of Methodological Naturalism(Natural philosophy/Science in general). We don't see "wise claims" about the world coming from ontological ideas/declarations like materialism/physicalism/ Supernaturalism/idealism...and all the other pseudo philosophical rubbish people use to pretend to know things that they can't. -"I guess Socrates should have just waited for you to come along" -lol so you are that ignorant???? It was Aristotle who first attempted to organize and define the Philosophical Method and logic (if you don't know it). In his work he said the exact same thing mate!!! He defined the 6 basic steps of Philosophy. 1. Epistemology 2. Physika(science/methodology) 3. Metaphysics based on natural principles ...if you aware of the famous painting of him pointing down to nature while Plato was pointing up to the ideal. (for the history the rest steps are 4. Aesthetics.5 Ethics 6.Politics). So Aritstole stressed the importance of interpreting the results(metaphysics) of our methodologies based on naturalistic principles. Sorry if that are news for you. So, as I said, my statement is nothing new, its only 2000 years old knowledge...you are just ignorant of this really old fact mate. You also ignore the success this acknowledgment had in our epistemology...since you are using a device and your internet connection to criticize my statement, while they both are technological achievements based on the wise claims made by Methodological Naturalism (science) about reality. Cheers mate....educate your self before posting such ignorant comments on things you don't understand.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@xerfoify what is this "problem of induction" my smart friend? Can you articulate it so that I don't straw man your position?

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@xerfoify so I guess you don't even know what the "problem of induction" is... You don't know that it is a pseudo philosophical "problem" that most of you reproduce without understanding the emptiness of the claim!...right?

[@mrmetaphysics9457]

What is science? Science is dead without philosophy!

[@tomjackson7755]

You have that backwards. Without science you have no sound arguments only valid ones.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Well according to a guy responsible for the definition and organization of the Philosophical method (some dude named Aristotle...) Science is the second most important step after Epistemology and before metaphysics. So his argument was "we do science(Psysika in his own words) to evaluate the credibility of our current epistemology and to inform our following metaphysics. Science(Natural Philosophy) was always philosophy that included that methodological step. Science is the best way to do Philosophy The philosophical inquiries that ignore those first two steps (Epistemology and Science) are pseudo philosophies.

[@smartentertainment9574]

Rightly said

[@buddhaneosiddhananda8499]

Feel good truth, is the only real truth...that's how you know it to be truth, because it feels good, ie. intuition. Do you think it to be truth because you "believe" it to be true..? By their very nature, beliefs are false.... look deeper...

[@craigknepley6021]

I have a feel good intuition that everything you said is wrong.

[@neffetSnnamremmiZ]

Yes, philosophy can of course help science in many ways. But it's priority or main task is to free thinking in an regressively way from these renunciations (built by philosophy), with which we generate our knowledge. That is what it means to "keep awake the sophos". Without philosophy science would put you into sleep. Science means not "thinking"!

[@xspotbox4400]

Most people are just alive, philosophers know they're alive and that this is The Life, not just another question. There are no great philosophers no more, they all went into other branches or writing TV Adds for some large corporations. Academia is more alive than ever, ethics, epistemology, fundamentals of logic or history of human social transformation are to important to be left without funding. Theology is special branch of philosophy, financed by billions of people all around the planet. Their main product is study of spiritual scriptures, tradition, socialization, altruism and culture. Important contemporary philosophers went over one of two collections from classical authors and became experts for certain time periods or leading intellectual thought. This is how they pay their rent and keep cults alive, some are also exclusive products of prestigious universities. Most controversial are political philosophers, they influence leaders of entire nations, unions and even empires. Great young philosophers doesn't exist, for a good reason. Everything is connected, larger is the sphere of knowledge, more unknown unknowns must be illuminated in shadow regins around it's edges. Philosopher can't cheat, can't learn or work his way up, he can only became with time. Scientist can read papers and books, attend lectures and seminars, there are many way one can keep up with colleges. Philosopher must understand all that and more, he must see how important discoveries looks and feels like with his own mind eye. Reality is so massive, complicated and even magical, it takes a lot of time and effort (and money...) before philosopher can trust understanding of his experiences, so he can transcend into a wizard and find new ways of understanding and exploration. To advance and enhance human evolution, how else could we expand and speed up biological destiny of our species? It would take forever if we would wait for science.

[@patmoran5339]

Thank you for your principled advocacy of philosophy.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

You are advocating the adoption of medieval practices...that is factually wrong.

[@patmoran5339]

Nickolas Gaspar You are right. I must have fallen asleep on that one.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@patmoran5339 You are confusing pseudo philosophy with philosophy mate.

[@stevecoley8365]

Life isn't science and physics. These things are ignorant (dead). Life is magic (love) and metaphysics. 7 Metaphysical Questions 1) How do we remove the current cornerstone called ignorance (greed) from life and replace it with the cornerstone of truth (love)? 2) How do we remove the heavy lead called ignorance (greed) from the springboard of truth (love)...so that the springboard rebounds to happiness and launches US to heaven (joy, beauty and harmony)? 3) How do we release the string of lies being pulled by ignorance (greed)...so that the bow of truth (love) returns to happiness and propels US to heaven (joy, beauty and harmony)? 4) How do we fill a black hole in space called ignorance (greed) with light (love)...so that it's darkness (misery, murder, mass shootings, suicides, war, etc.) goes away and it's heavy gravitational pull stops sucking the joy out of life and destroying the planet? 5) How do we knock down the wall of lies saying that "life is business" (greed)...so that the truth that "life is art" (creating joy) floods the earth and washes away it's ignorance (hate)? 6) How do we make the hostile evangelical and jewish vampires (greed) who are blind...see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war)? 7) How do we make the evangelical and jewish vampires (greed) who are blind...see the ignorance of destroying the planet? Question. Why are the evangelical and jewish counting corpses using the bible as a springboard to perform somersaults to do the exact opposite of "love their neighbors" and "treat others like they want to be treated? Answer. This is sick. Because these simple concepts are too far out there to grasp for vampires (greed). Transforming frowns into smiles is smarter than turning lead into gold. And transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war) is more ignorant (dead) than turning gold into lead. Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.

[@neilcreamer8207]

I think that anyone who believes that Science should operate without Philosophy has never stopped to question the meaning of ideas like Truth, Reality and Existence. Science has done a great job in areas of study where our basic assumptions about the nature of reality did not need to be questioned. However, it started to come unstuck with the advent of quantum mechanics and it has consistently failed to get a handle on consciousness. I think that Collin Blakemore's position is one of the best here but I still think that he makes un-inspected assumptions such as conflating brain and mind. However, a neurobiologist possibly has to do that or find a different job!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Science is the best way we currently have to do Philosophy. Philosophy is the only way we have to make sense of our scientific foundings. Science is Philosophy and always was, with a high respect to logic and standards of evidence and with a set of methodologies able to make systematize our philosophical convictions.

[@kelvyndidaskalos547]

I just wanna see the comments,man hahahahaha

[@gaurangagrawal6251]

3:08 Wittgenstein, very famously so.(there are other names too, but this is a big one) 4:10 do we do physics for the sake of use? really what are the use of those black holes. The contribution of philosophy, from my opinion is that it makes you more perceptible of far fetching and radical sounding ideas, freeing us from the narrow mindedness it gives uncertainty to the everyday common sense and a reason to look things from different perspective. one should keep in mind that its not 100% that everything philosophy says is true, no, that's dogma. but when we know of 100s of radical unseemly ideas you are less likely to stick to just one. it helps to speed up Kuhn's cycles.

[@alikarimi-langroodi5402]

Phylosophy does not help science directly. Rumi never beleived in phyilosophy, because it creates own knots for others to un-knot.

[@MrSuperduperpj]

ummm... yeah, it's useful because the scientific method is a product of philosophy...

[@benarthurhuzz4664]

Math is not science but why are scientists using maths?

[@ruskiny280]

Science does not have truth.

[@gyro5d]

Consciousness perturbates from Counterspace through the Inertial plane. Informing fractals to create Aether. Aether is created for Space to exist in. Space is created for Aether to exist in. Empty Space does not exist.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

It depends from the drugs you are on....

[@buca512boxer]

No. Not at all. philosophy is so far behind science that it has been rendered obsolete. It does have some standing on moral and ethical and lifestyle issues still, but not in knowledge.

[@agnes4606]

The most important thing with philosophy of science is that it humbles science, and reminds us that science is not necessarily objective truth.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

How can you possibly say that???

[@danie7kovacs]

@@jamesbentonticer4706 Fantastic response. Well argued, properly reasoned.

[@guzylad5]

Wacky bias.

[@alcazarrealty]

Isn't Philosophy is to Science akin to theory is to observation? If so, then maybe these two should be more friends than enemies.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Yes Science is nothing more than Philosophy with an evaluation methodology and specific Philosophical principles.

[@tahamohammedi5898]

This guy spends a lot of time pretending there is no camera.

[@alainbellemare2168]

Truth is temporary

[@buddhaneosiddhananda8499]

Philosophy and science, can't get you to heaven...

[@Elazar40]

Philosophy, a Greek word derived from Philo, who lived in Alexandria whilst a Roman province of Egypt, emerged from the high sciences of antiquity, from which we have devolved in our understanding. So philosophy is in many ways, a reduction & obfuscation of a functional knowledge of science.

[@10mimu]

There is both a fallacy and a falsehood here. The etymology of a word determines neither its meaning or, conversively, the nature of what it denotes; and that is not the etymological origin of the word.

[@Elazar40]

@@10mimu We'll leave you with that thought

[@10mimu]

@@Elazar40 Care to ellaborate?

[@Elazar40]

@@10mimu No.

[@10mimu]

@@Elazar40 Then I suppose it really doesn't stand to scrutiny, does it, Elazar?

[@joshuakeeling8872]

Science is nothing more than mistaking the map for the road. But it's the best - and only - tool we have. Philosophy and science do not belong together in the same league. Abstract thought is not physical, thus should never, ever be thrown in with science. Since science is the map and not the road, attempting to use philosophy will thus leave us at a dead end.

[@olgasaxina3579]

Mathematics operates with abstract, non-physical entities. Should we not use it in our journey on this road?

[@patmoran5339]

There are many phenomena that are not physical and yet are real like knowledge, freedom, morality, and mind.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

You are factually wrong. Science is nothing more than a philosophical category that was forced to abandon the sinking ship of academic philosophy. The run away success of science in epistemology proved this decision (splitting from philosophy) correct . Natural Philosophy(science) is the best and only way to do philosophy. Its the only method faithful to the goal of philosophy...to produce wise claims about the world(it is in its etymology). Science is Philosophy with an empirical methodology that allow us to evaluate our frameworks. Even Aristotle in his monumental work of systematizing and organizing Philosophy and logic defines Science(Physika) as the second most important step in all our philosophical endeavors. btw I am not sure that you understand what science is because you are repeating this irrelevant claim "Since science is the map and not the road, a" Science is a naturalistic philosophy (due to pragmatic necessity) with an empirical methodology and high standards of evidence...Science draws an accurate map of a road leading to an epistemology of high quality.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

" Abstract thought is not physical, thus should never, ever be thrown in with science." -btw everything is routed in our physical nature. Even our abstract concepts are labels for processes of group of entities. The same is true for logic and math. Their rules principles and criteria are all based on empirical qualities.

[@patmoran5339]

Nickolas Gaspar Abstract thought is real. All of those other things that I listed are real. Bad philosophy is real and it operates to prevent the creation of new knowledge. Instrumentalism is what I call a Simple World Philosophy. It represents a principled rejection of scientific explanation as the goal of science. It is the avoidance of explaining the world.

[@PrivateSi]

Does science help philsophy? Has science helped philosophy? Good questions.... yes and yes.... Science answered most of the philosophical questions until quantum physics pissed on the bonfire, opening the door to all sorts of ancient woo-woo and modern sci-woo.... sorry, Philosophy.... Science put repeatable experimental emperical evidence ahead of 'pure thought'... The religious clutching onto 'consciousness' as a major philosophical problem is laughable.... and believe me, even I could make an AI personality with a sense of humour, that tells jokes with perfect comic timing, and given enough wordly knowledge and experience, would laugh at jokes it found funny - and explain why if asked....I will require £1 million and 3 years but will give back the principle in 3 years if I fail.... NO JOKE!

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

that happens every time we come up with a difficult question. look at all the new age woo of consciousness. Look how Natural Sciences treat social sciences...and of course QM. Every time we manage to hit an intellectual obstacle...an avalanche made of pseudo philosophical bovine manure rushes in the levels everything. Magical thinking is presented as a equal alternative of painstaking intellectual work. Science is nothing more than how philosophy should be done by everyone...without supernatural principles and presumptions, without fallacies and without personal biases. Science is the best way to do philosophy and the only way true to the goal of philosophy(produce wise claims about the world).

[@FAAMS1]

...a fragile poor defence of Philosophy in a time where Science is knee-deep into philosophical arguments...there was never so much Philosophy going on in Science departments all over the world. The irony! I don't give a rats azz to what you are calling your work being about...call it Science all you want but 90% of it is Philosophy and if you don't understand why then you already lost any chance of getting closer to truth...

[@thriceconcussed1]

The explanations of the principles implied by quantum mechanics sound like the ramblings of a second year philosophy major. The professor who oversaw my senior thesis, and taught my independent formal logic course always warned philosophy students that any paper which appeals to quantum mechanics as a premise needs to be rewritten.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

Science is Philosophy...its the best way to do philosophy. Its the only one with the method able to evaluate our theoretical conclusions. This is what philosophy is all about...."to produce wise claims about the word"...it is in its definition. So Science is nothing more than a label we use to distinguish pseudo philosophy from real philosophy.

[@FAAMS1]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 To an extent I agree and I respect Science deeply, but it is the case that much of what Science does depends on concepts that are open to Philosophical debate .Gathering data with precision is of utmost importance but interpreting what that data refers to is an entirely different matter.

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

@@FAAMS1 "To an extent I agree and I respect Science deeply" -There is nothing to disagree and disrespect with the most systematic and most epistemically successful way currently available to us. -"but it is the case that much of what Science does depends on concepts that are open to Philosophical debate". -Sure. all of our past philosophical questions were addressed and answered by Science. In simple terms Philosophy becomes science when our technology provides us with ways to produce data capable to evaluate our hypotheses. -"Gathering data with precision is of utmost importance but interpreting what that data refers to is an entirely different matter" -Well not so different, science started as Physika and Natural Philosophy. So theoretical frameworks is part of the philosophy we identify as Science today.

[@FAAMS1]

@@nickolasgaspar9660 No! You have a great deal of work ahead with concepts especially in Mathematics that are not open to Scientific inquiry and from which Science depends upon. In fact belief in Natural Philosophy is itself a philosophical stance and one that is debatable. Infinity, Set Theory, Russels paradox, etc comes to mind when it comes to understanding the limits of human Knowledge, not to mention of course language and its conceptual limits grounded in a given cultural time frame. Data without interpretation is useless.

[@HakWilliams]

The same way a little kid "helps" mommy make the whole dinner when he carries the napkins to the table

[@nickolasgaspar9660]

the difference is that in this case the kid is doing all the meaningful job needed for the dinner to be served...

[@julianmann6172]

Great scientists and thinkers discounted philosophy long ago. A scientist who espouses philosophy does not understand science.

[@buddhaneosiddhananda8499]

All belief systems, by their very nature, are faulty...

[@julianmann6172]

@@buddhaneosiddhananda8499 Except belief in G-D, which a perfect belief system. Philosophy is just a mass of irrelevant musings.

[@sudiptasamaddar6087]

Philosophy is just speculation with good literature. It gives us good stories and entertains us but doesn't get any "Closer to Truth"!

[@ThermaL-ty7bw]

like a fart helps the hole table eat their meal , stay away with this nonsense , we live in the real world , not in ''science fiction'' it's like saying , ''can jesus cut your steak?'' i think i'm hungry and i need to eat something , haven't slept in a month with this with lockdown

[@amirbens2278]

When it comes to science, philosophy is a waste of time. We had great philosophers in the past none of them discover anything.

[@maxheadrom3088]

Philosophy is the mother and father of science. There's such a low formalism currently in science that is worrisome. One example: is inteligence importantly determined by genetics? Some people strongly claim it is for sure importantly determined by genetics. Well ... inteligence is a hard subject because we need to define inteligence in a way that is applicable to diferent times in history ... so let's see what researchers say about longevity and genetics. Longevity is a really objective measurment (compared to inteligence, at least) and getting the data is straightforward. So, from 0 to 100%, how much does genetics weights into human longevity? ˙ʇuǝɔɹǝd ǝʌıℲ ʎʇuǝʍ⊥ :ɹǝʍsu∀ I'm currently interested in finding out if "self organizing systems" is something real or a falacy. Consider, for instance, the famous Pong experiment where a sports arena filled with people had these sticks painted red on one side and gree on the other and they all played the old arcade game Pong. In the experiment, hundreds of people who could only communicate with those next to them ended up deciding, as a group, how many bars should be turned with the green or red side forwards so the bar would move to the height the ball was heading to. That experiment is one of the founding evidences of the internet utopians who claimed society would turn pink, spring would never end, I would grow my hair back and loose my fat belly once the internet allowed everybody to comunicate and, therefore, self organize in a very Californian way. The question: was the system self organizing or was Pong organizing the crowd? If you remove the common goal and the feedback would it still organize? As anyone who ever read Twitter knows, it was probably Pong organizing the people and once Pong is gone all we have is a broken old videogame.