Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Bertrand Russel once said
    "Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you dont know."
    Many im sure would agree that philosophy is as big a part of science as hard fact. Fact often follows evidence by investigation from creative thinking. But in black and white terms, do you agree with this statement? Feel free to discuss.

    There's even a nice poll. Not that im trying to make it competitive or anything....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thealchemist)
    Albert Einstein once said
    "Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you dont know."
    Many im sure would agree that philosophy is as big a part of science as hard fact. Fact often follows evidence by investigation from creative thinking. But in black and white terms, do you agree with this statement? Feel free to discuss.
    Its hard to say, what is science and what is philosophy, is it all just a mirage of things we think that we know that we don’t know? Anyway to cut the bullsh*t yes
    Offline

    9
    Arguably the other way. Science is all composed of theories no one can prove (and which in fact, might be false even after hundreds of years of acceptance, ala newtonian mechanics and relativity). Philosophy, on the other hand, is all founded on the logic of the mind, which gives it a similar standing as mathematics.

    Yet mathematics is, arguably, not the final true either, but just a self-consistent system we develop.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt if Einstein ever said this. After all, he himself showed things we didn't know to probably be true.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    I doubt if Einstein ever said this. After all, he himself showed things we didn't know to probably be true.
    True becasue as i look closer somebody else said it. Thats what being up too late does to you. Slightly embarrassed but never mind. Bertrand Russel said this and it still makes for a fun arguement all the same
    Enlighten me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "Science is what you think you know, Philosophy is what you know you don't know"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Science is based on the external world, so if you don't believe that there is an external world then surely science is meaningless? I'm not sure if Nietzsche believe in an external world or not but I know that he thought that science was all opinion so if you gave the same information gained from experiments to a different person they could come up with a completely different conclusion.

    If you look back at how science as we know it developed, it came from Philosophy. Therefore if there was no Philosophy there would be no science. Therefore Philosophy wins :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thealchemist)
    True becasue as i look closer somebody else said it. Thats what being up too late does to you. Slightly embarrassed but never mind. Bertrand Russel said this and it still makes for a fun arguement all the same
    Enlighten me
    I'd be interested to see the context. I doubt that Russell said that without qualifications too.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    I'd be interested to see the context. I doubt that Russell said that without qualifications too.
    Yeah i agree i doubt the wosdom quotes website has much of a clue on the matter. I wouldn't be at all suprised if they got the quote wrong too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You never get anywhere with philosophy, though. People are asking the same questions they were asking thousands of years ago. On the other hand, science is questions you can test, and at least partially answer.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Science claims to know the answers. Philosophy claims to not even know what the question was.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Calvin)
    Science claims to know the answers. Philosophy claims to not even know what the question was.
    Remind me to rep you for that tommorow.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    surely this is a false dichotomy. MScience lies within the sphere of philosophy,

    MB
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well the usual claim is that philosophy is deductive whereas science is inductive.

    So I guess Science is what you go find, philosophy is what you sit and work out.

    Though when you do philosophy they (of course!) challenge that. Popper says for example that science deals with theories and statements which are falsifiable. From each statement you deduce further statements and continually try to falsify each one. Anything that is shown to be false is either rejected or amended. And you just keep going like that.
    Philosophy on the other hand isn't about falsification, only logical contradiction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I tend to think that if you look a bit deeper, the key thing that differentiates them is testability.

    Anything that can be tested, whether through experiment, observation, historical evidence, or any other actual data is science.

    Anything that is inherently untestable is philosophy.

    Incidentally, I've come to the conclusion that this is the reason why all the "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolutionary Darwinism threads always degenerate: Darwinism is testable, by historical, archeological, biological and observational evidence, and is therefore a science. Intelligent Design relies upon the existance of a factor (i.e. a God) that is inherently untestable, and is thus a philosophy. Thus, any attempt to compare the two will inevitably fail.

    Of course, this does not solve the argument of which system of knowledge is the superior. Science, with the knowlege that your theories are based on undeniable experimental and real-world data, but with that caveat that they can never be completely proven (in the mathematical sense of the word)? Or philosophy, with the comfort that your theories can be based entirely upon deductive logic, but the drawback that they inherently can never be tested, experimentally or otherwise - and the fact that you can only use deductive logical when given a starting point, and there is no way of proving that point true or false?

    Frankly, the only things that can ever be proven are those that are deduced using pure logic from previous conclusions or axioms, and even they have the caveat that they are only true if the previous conclusions are true and the axioms consistent with each other.

    ...Which can never be proven.

    All of which leads to the fairly depression conclusion that nothing can ever be conclusively proven. Although note that that conclusion has not been conclusively proven.

    Opinions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How stupid.

    Science is what we know. Philosophy gives theories for things science cannot explain.

    Religion, and Philosophy are two very different things.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simxp)

    Opinions?
    You have abnormally stringent requirements for proof.
    Couldn't I conclusively prove the statement 'something exists'?

    Furthermore, might you perhaps go in to a little more detail on what you mean by 'testible'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This poll seems entirely based on the different definitions of philosophy, as all seem to have gone with Popper's definition of science as hypothesis testing, however
    Wittgenstein defined philosophy (in his later years) as merely observing, having a duty to leave everything in it's place, and simply observing, he was hitting back against philosophy as metaphysics, explaining what we don't know, and the philosophy of language which dominated the early 20th century, defining what language could or couldn't do. According to Wittgenstein the philosophers job was one of observation, not dictation. This would directly contradict the quote heading this debate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Arguably the other way. Science is all composed of theories no one can prove (and which in fact, might be false even after hundreds of years of acceptance, ala newtonian mechanics and relativity). Philosophy, on the other hand, is all founded on the logic of the mind, which gives it a similar standing as mathematics.

    Yet mathematics is, arguably, not the final true either, but just a self-consistent system we develop.
    Why be so confident in the 'logic of the mind'? Our brains are composed or ordinary matter, our thoughts and reasoning are the result of countless chemical reactions all obeying the law of physics. If all we know of these laws are unprovable theories, then how can you trust something that relies on them (is the results of them) so completely? How do we know our reasoning is not flawed in some way or and not comprehend the true reality?

    Hope you get what I mean! :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Papa Egg)
    This poll seems entirely based on the different definitions of philosophy, as all seem to have gone with Popper's definition of science as hypothesis testing, however
    Wittgenstein defined philosophy (in his later years) as merely observing, having a duty to leave everything in it's place, and simply observing, he was hitting back against philosophy as metaphysics, explaining what we don't know, and the philosophy of language which dominated the early 20th century, defining what language could or couldn't do. According to Wittgenstein the philosophers job was one of observation, not dictation. This would directly contradict the quote heading this debate.

    Well quite. So perhaps: Science is finding what you can say, philosophy is finding what you can't?
    (Original post by Nikkt)
    Why be so confident in the 'logic of the mind'? Our brains are composed or ordinary matter, our thoughts and reasoning are the result of countless chemical reactions all obeying the law of physics. If all we know of these laws are unprovable theories, then how can you trust something that relies on them (is the results of them) so completely? How do we know our reasoning is not flawed in some way or and not comprehend the true reality?

    Hope you get what I mean!
    Without wishing to put words into Saichu's mouth I think he's suggesting not that logic is a process of the mind but something which necessarily underpins all our thoughts. Arguably our interaction with the world is through interpretation and logic underpins our interpretation so will necessarily underpin science.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.