The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Original post by TorpidPhil
Mathematics is not a science :tongue:


It is.
Original post by ubisoft
It is.


Under what definition of science?
Reply 82
Original post by TorpidPhil
Mathematics is not a science :tongue:


Yes it is. :wink:
Original post by jneill
Yes it is. :wink:


How?
Reply 84
Original post by TorpidPhil
Under what definition of science?


Under all definitions. Mathematics is the most basic of sciences. Without it there wouldn't be science.
Reply 85
Original post by TorpidPhil
How?


Philosophically.
Original post by ubisoft
Under all definitions. Mathematics is the most basic of sciences. Without it there wouldn't be science.


Nonsense. That's not even a response. There are plenty of definitions of science which do not include it. I find it incredibly difficult to define maths as a science but not philosophy as one. One simply cannot go around touting mathematics as the king of science and say that philosophy is an art lol.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Because by definition, without philosophy all of the other subjects would make no sense and getting any sort of utility from them would be just impossible. Besides the subjects themselves only came about because philosophy in that area, preceded it. Philosophy was necessary to allow for psychology to exist. For biology to exist. For natural physics to exist. For everything. Philosophy concerns itself with logic which in turn is the basis of how in every single other discipline

Philosophy teaches us how we ought to live our lives and behave through ethics, which again affects every single other discipline. It teaches us what is real and how we gain knowledge and what knowledge is. Which again affect how every other single discipline operates.

It's just massively all-encompassing and every other discipline hinges on it. But that's the point. That's what the term "philosophy" means as far as a subject is concerned. It is everything that we can know.

Ever studied any philosophy of art? Pretty sure a lot of it is fundamental to anyone who tries to make sense of any academic study of art. I mean, first thing first, before you do art, you must have a single, objective definition of art, no? You're already doing philosophy before you start!


You have a good point, however I don't think that philosophy is as accessible as art. Also, surely you are actually implying that art has elements similar to philosophy rather than that philosophy is necessary in art? I don't think art needs a solid definition, part of its power is in the paradox of it being fully singular and fully plural, fully private and fully shared. Basically - each work of art is obviously individual, distinct and singular but if you consider something to be defined by people's perceptions or experiences of it, it is infinitely plural. One piece of art can have a million different significances for a million different people. In this way, it allows us to be united by something shared without it being at the expense of our sense of individuality? Do you not think this is more powerful than philosophy?

Art lends itself - as you mentioned - to philosophical analysis and meaning, but is also inherently practical. Besides, by visually presenting our philosophical ideas, are we not making them more accessible, more developed and therefore serving a greater purpose?

Obviously, this is just my opinion and I do agree that philosophy is fundamental to understanding all worldly and spiritual disciplines. It allows us to challenge ourselves and our ideas in a very healthy way and I think society needs more of that.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Nonsense. That's not even a response. There are plenty of definitions of science which do not include it. I find it incredibly difficult to define maths as a science but not philosophy as one.


physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry; therefore all science is applied maths.
Original post by nverjvlev
I don't think art needs a solid definition, part of its power is in the paradox of it being fully singular and fully plural, fully private and fully shared. Basically - each work of art is obviously individual, distinct and singular but if you consider something to be defined by people's perceptions or experiences of it, it is infinitely plural. One piece of art can have a million different significances for a million different people. In this way, it allows us to be united by something shared without it being at the expense of our sense of individuality?


This is philosophy :tongue:
Reply 90
Original post by nverjvlev
physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry; therefore all science is applied maths.


That's copyright @Puddles the Monkey (see the monkey's post earlier...)
Original post by nverjvlev
physics is applied maths, chemistry is applied physics, biology is applied chemistry; therefore all science is applied maths.


Applied maths is not maths. Everything is applied philosophy. Therefore all science is philosophy? Wut?
@jneill Look what you've started.
Original post by Emilia1320
True, arts are pretty useless, but I think language skills are needed, so I'd say languages (if I can't say economics) to the extend that communication is possible. Of course it would be easier if everyone just spoke same language, but as someone whose first language is not English I think out of humanities classes English has been very useful to me, and other humanities classes have been entirely useless. If I hadn't taken those English classes domain of study materials (to all subjects) avilabe for me would be quite limited, and I couldnt study my high school (IB) degree in English.


I'm sorry, is art not a language? And your complete dismissal of arts shows your lack of emotional intelligence and intellectual ability... just because you aren't open-minded enough to even attempt to understand something doesn't mean that A) you shouldn't or B) it isn't important.

We live in an image-saturated age. Everything you have ever purchased was marketed, and marketing would be useless without visual aid. So if art is vital in the functioning of the economy and countless other areas, how is it useless? I could go on...
I think is mathematics a science depends on definition of science.

Mathematics functions very same way to sciences, you have a hypothesis, and then you need evidence, in case of math a proof.

It is not a natural science since it doesn't investigate nature, but I think it still is science because all results on math are repeatble, and its objective. There is no place for opinion.

I think math is more a science than social sciences.
Original post by TorpidPhil
Applied maths is not maths. Everything is applied philosophy. Therefore all science is philosophy? Wut?


This is such a contradiction - by your logic, applied philosophy cannot be philosophy therefore is everything is applied philosophy then nothing is philosophy... if not then applied maths CAN be considered (the the same logic) maths and therefore all science is maths. You cannot dismiss something one minute then allow it the next to suit yourself, that's not how logic works.

I'd expect you to understand that as a passionate philosopher.
Original post by Emilia1320
I think is mathematics a science depends on definition of science.

Mathematics functions very same way to sciences, you have a hypothesis, and then you need evidence, in case of math a proof.

It is not a natural science since it doesn't investigate nature, but I think it still is science because all results on math are repeatble, and its objective. There is no place for opinion.

I think math is more a science than social sciences.


But that is precisely how any good analytic philosophy works too. Is analytic philosophy more of a science than social sciences? Perhaps so. But then you get people who talk about existentialism and it is indeed part of philosophy albeit one I never venture into because frankly I think it is vacuous crap. Perhaps philosophy is too broad defined to even bother talking about in this context.

Of course when I say philosophy is useful I don't mean Indian philosophy >_>
Reply 97
History or Philosophy - both of them share the top spot in my opinion.
Philosophy.
Original post by nverjvlev
This is such a contradiction - by your logic, applied philosophy cannot be philosophy therefore is everything is applied philosophy then nothing is philosophy... if not then applied maths CAN be considered (the the same logic) maths and therefore all science is maths. You cannot dismiss something one minute then allow it the next to suit yourself, that's not how logic works.

I'd expect you to understand that as a passionate philosopher.


Actually philosophy is unique in that it is the only discipline that can apply itself while being itself... Philosophy of science is not science, but philosophy. You don't really get mathematics of physics though, that, is just part of physics (at least semantically?). I'm not entirely sure about the semantic cause of that... just something I've noticed.

Still, ignoring that, because my intention was not to raise that point before. I just wanted to show the alternatives. If maths is the king of science then philosophy is the king of maths and... That doesn't sit well with many folks. I suppose the problem is what I alluded to before though - people think then of existentialism and continental feminists ruling over mathematicians. Hahaha. Obviously not... And if people don't want to concede that then must argue that applied maths is not "maths", perhaps meta-maths? You could try and differentiate the two. I suggest taking the route which simplifies this whole "categorising disciplines into different areas" problem. As after all surely the purpose of categorising disciplines by name is to simplify the similarities and differences between them in some way and to make inter-disciplinary comparisons and research easier?
(edited 8 years ago)

Latest