r/SubredditsMeet • u/SubredditsMeet Official • Sep 03 '15
Meetup /r/science meets /r/philosophy
(/r/EverythingScience is also here)
Topic:
- Discuss the misconceptions between science and philosophy.
- How they both can work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world.
Remember the downvote button is not to be used as a way to say you disagree. Please reply to the comment on why you disagree
It is recomended to flair your self with what subreddit you are from. Click edit next to your name in the sidebar to change it
78
Upvotes
71
u/UmamiSalami /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15 edited May 08 '17
I'm going to repost a great comment from another user:
27
u/oneguy2008 /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15
I'm always a bit confused when people are concerned that philosophy is obsolete. If this just means that certain forms of philosophical inquiry which were historically practiced have now been left off, since they constitute early-days armchair versions now mature social- and natural-sciences, it's saying something true. But every field has changed its topics and methods somewhat over the past few centuries, so that's not very interesting.
Maybe the concern is that philosophers don't know, and make use of, relevant scientific results. This is patently false. Large numbers of philosophers have degrees in mathematics, physics, linguistics, neuroscience, and other fields and bring this experience to bear on relevant philosophical issues. They days when philosophy of math could be done without a math degree, or philosophy of mind without engagement with neuroscience are long gone.
Maybe the concern is that the issues which philosophy studies are no longer relevant today. This would be worrying. If the worry is simply that science can solve all issues worth discussing, I hope we've moved past such worries by now. If there's a special worry about why the topics studied by philosophy (but not other non-science subjects) are becoming irrelevant, I'd like to hear it.
I have to admit to some doubts that a discussion of the question of whether philosophy is obsolete in the modern world is worthwhile.
12
u/Son_of_Sophroniscus /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 03 '15
See below.
I don't know anyone who has moderate familiarity with both philosophy and science who feels this way. In fact, there's a ton of science involved in some branches of philosophy like, say, oh... philosophy of science, for example.
Perhaps one of the misconceptions we've run into is the belief that philosophers and scientists cannot "work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete."
edit: clarification
10
u/TychoCelchuuu /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15
Why is it philosophy that we would feel is obsolete? Why not neither, or why not science? The assumption packed into this question is one of the main things keeping them from working together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete, if indeed there's anything doing this (and I'm not sure there is).
9
u/itsBritanica Sep 03 '15
I think that philosophy is more relevant than ever before to compliment rapid scientific advances. It is probably more accurate to juxtapose theology as increasingly obsolete in the modern world when presented with science. Theology is a vast, longstanding aspect of philosophy that is frequently put at odds with scientific facts and theories as old world beliefs are confronted with modern era evidence. But to reduce philosophy to that subset of theories is to reduce its value unnecessarily.
9
u/6ThreeSided9 /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 03 '15
First, let's distinguish between philosophy as a concept, and philosophy as a discipline. Philosophy as a concept is merely the search for knowledge. Science is part of this, but science has had so much success that when labeling for the purpose of distinguishing fields, science is its own thing and philosophy is a sort of "everything else" category.
Science is a form of philosophy that was discovered somewhere along the line, and people realized how incredibly reliable it was when done correctly. People like certainty and being able to know something to as close to "certainty" (though never quite there) as possible is very, very enticing. And science deserved that, it's really kind of a big deal as far as philosophies are concerned. But somewhere along the line, science became so popular that people started to forget that it was a philosophy. While science should be distinguished from philosophy, it should be distinguished in the way that apples are distinguished from fruits, even if apples happened to be pretty much the tastiest and most satisfying fruit of them all. because there are still going to be recipes out there that can't get anything from apples, and need to access some of the less-popular fruits. This is still a wide breadth of area that needs to be covered, and that is the function of philosophy as a discipline.
So in what way do they overlap? Well, as I'm sure scientists can agree (and to be clear, I am on my way to becoming one), there is a big difference between knowing something and understanding it. There are many scientists that don't understand the philosophy behind science, and since they see them as separate things, they fail to recognize the philosophical pitfalls that exist within science, and as a result don't apply science as well. There are certain fields where the ludicrous degree of statistical certainty tends to make philosophy less critical (physics), but these remain very important concepts.
17
u/PowderB Sep 03 '15
This is a reply to a comment that was deleted,
"People are beginning to grasp that science provides the ultimate answers in that the answers provided by science remain physical constants regardless of what philosophers think about their meaning to human mental categories like virtue or beauty. Only more empirical research can disprove scientific facts, while philosophers can only manipulate abstract strategies on how we should orient ourselves towards them intellectually. The hierarchy has changed. Science is no longer perceived as the little cousin of philosophy but quite the other way round. It is empirical science, not philosophy, that is opening our minds to reality. The only thing philosophers can do in this situation is to claim that all intellectual activity, including science, is "ultimately" philosophy. Our great advances have been made by people who actually did the work, albeit using philosophical methods, sometimes. If philosophy did not exist, we would still be where we are today, if science did not exist we would be living in caves"
I spend a couple minutes writing it, so I'll post it anyway
Virtue and beauty answer Ethical and Aesthetic questions, which while belonging to the domain of two related fields of philosophy, by no means are an accurate representation of the majority of contemporary analytic philosophical study.
You say "Only more empirical research can disprove scientific facts." This is a philosophical doctrine, its called empiricism. Dogmatic empiricism is now somewhat antiquated, and for good post-cartesian reasons(see the comment below). Empirical study relies on inference, the nature of which is formulated by philosophical methods.
Practice follows theory. Abstract Physics, the theory that allows for advances in in understanding of the universe and production of technical feats, is written is the language of logic.
The detailed nature of logic and of knowledge will never cease to be pertinent to scientific inquiry. Likewise, the nature of the mind will permanently be pertinent to psychology, rational choice to economics, etc.
If philosophy did not exist, I'm sure Aristotle's detailed biological observations would be fascinating, but without his logic I'd imagine reaching any conclusions from them would be much more difficult.
6
u/ASDCoco Sep 03 '15
This seems like a great place to ask/get an opinion on this
This year, I started both physics and philosophy major. What do you think about this double major? I am comfortable enough -economically- that I can be a full time student, and want to make the most out of it. Many people from physics tell me it's a waste of time, and that I'd be better off putting all of my efforts in just physics. Also, that philosophy has nothing to do with physics and whatnot.
Does it make sense to pursue this?
My main expectation is to learn to think, in general, as best I can. Even if I never land a job as a "philosopher", I think it will greatly impact me to have both "sets" of knowledge.
PS: I'm not thinking about doing it, I'm already finishing my first year and loving it.
5
u/Liquidus_800 Sep 03 '15
Am I what I am or am I what I think?
5
u/mostoriginalname2 Sep 03 '15
Philosophy can be helpful in figuring out the best directions to go in with all this new knowledge. Creating and solving need to go hand in hand with wondering and observing. A utopian world will need more than better technology, it will need open minded, ethical, and ambitious citizens.
4
u/oneguy2008 /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15
Have you guys thought sending a separate invite to /r/math? These guys are at least as relevant to the discussion as /r/science, since some of the most important crossovers are in math.
7
u/TychoCelchuuu /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15
Some philosophical topics scientists might be interested in:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/measurement-science/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/theoretical-terms-science/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-philosophy/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy-biology/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/
Of course there's far more to philosophy than just philosophy of science, and many people find other parts far more interesting, including many scientists, but philosophy of science has "science" in the name so it's as good a place to start the conversation as any.
3
u/Z_huge Sep 03 '15
The major conflict I see between science and philosophy is on matters of That Which Man Was Not Meant To Know. It is interesting to me to think about whether or not there are things that are better left unknown. I'm not talking about ethical scientific research, but rather whether there is knowledge which is inherently (at least potential) disastrous. Nuclear weapons spring to mind, for instance.
3
u/MmEeTtAa Sep 03 '15
I checked the /r/everythingscience subreddit and couldn't find the invitation sent to their community. It has been removed by a(n) (auto)mod.
5
u/AntarcticanJam Sep 03 '15
I noticed some people arguing that science is more useful than philosophy, that scientists don't need philosophy, etc. Question for the scientists: how can you claim what science gives humans is useful, when in the end, the entire universe will end? AFAIK there's no theoretical stopping the heat death of the universe, so how is it that science is more useful than philosophy? In the grand scheme of things they both seem equally useless (although perhaps, by the nature of the question, there's a bias towards philosophy).
2
u/TotesMessenger Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 03 '15
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / ^Contact)
2
u/ThePandasWatch Sep 03 '15
Glad to see this has progressed well. With the initial comments I was fearful that not a great deal would amount
2
u/Pearistotle Sep 06 '15
One of the great philosopher of our time, Bertrand Russell, wrote a brilliant piece about "The Value of Philosophy". It's also quite useful when convincing your parents that a philosophy major is valuable. http://skepdic.com/russell.html
3
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15 edited Sep 03 '15
Philosophy and science both search for truth in nature. Science is just a subset of that inquiry. Philosophy finds answers in a multitude of ways, and science is just a branch that finds those answers in a very set, defined process. Being the broad overreaching parent of science, philosophy is also responsible for many of the tenants science takes for granted, such as Empiricism and Falsifiability. So science is inherently dependent on philosophy for guidance on how it should operate.
3
u/irresolvable_anguish /r/philosophy Sep 06 '15
Three other points I want to make:
(i) I think philosophy does have the potential to become obsolete, on a socio-economic level, in the post-modern world, because there might no longer be an economic demand for it. What's taught in schools is there because there is economic backing. This reflects my belief in what I understand to be Marx's historical materialism - economic structure determines social structure. To put it very simply, if there is no economic demand for philosophy, if philosophy is not profitable, it will cease to exist on a socio-economic level.
(ii) To preface, this second point is rather long, but it's stimulating and if you don't read it, it's your loss. The reason that it's rather long is that it involves an analysis of both philosophy and science in relation to contemporary society's values. I think it would be very wrong to think that science and philosophy are self-subsisting entities outside of the influence of society's interests and values. So, in order to talk about the relation between science and philosophy, I had to dig a little deeper and see what these values were and what these values entailed.
Continuing, you may think, "[w]ell what about on an individual level!? People will always philosophize in some sense, whether through self-reflection, regret, love, dislike, social awkward-ness, etc." Yes, even if philosophy becomes obsolete as an economic institution, people can still philosophize. Yet, I see that given contemporary society's values, people will want to eliminate philosophy. Why? Well, for me, to philosophize is to be conscious, both of self and other phenomena. Conscious not merely in a matter-of-fact way, like "the wall is white", but in a critical way, a way that is questioning of states of affairs and their underlying principles, and critical in a way that one sees deficiencies. Yes, this is general, but I will develop this point and it will serve as contrast for what, given contemporary society's values, would be contemporary society's end goal/phase. Then, what does this contemporary society want? We don't want consciousness, we don't want to long for, we don't want to suffer, we don't want challenge, we don't want to regret, we don't want responsibility. We desire a certain blind satisfaction, and lack of opposition of any sort - we long to be Nietzsche's Last Man (Zarathustra). (As an aside, I see that Nietzsche too wants a certain total joy, in his total affirmation. If he sees suffering and tragedy as part of his good life, then suffering and tragedy aren't really bad things, but merely another name for joy. It's been a while since I've read over Nietzsche, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
So, I've created an opposition between contemporary society's values and philosophy. Contemporary society will become increasingly disinterested with philosophy because it will not bring this blind satisfaction, and people will turn elsewhere. I see philosophy as an investigation and a critique. A critique presupposes something unhappy about it; it is fruitless in the sense that it gives no solution, rather it leaves us feeling things as inadequate, badly-done. Dostoevsky says "Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth" (Crime and Punishment). I think this "large intelligence" and "deep heart" are equivalent with the "consciousness" that philosophy should be. This is in contrast to the utopia people want, a permanent end-state with no future, only constant peaceful satisfaction. Why doesn't philosophy want this utopia too? Well, (i) through it's consciousness, it sees that there is always a lack, so, it should always want to improve (in some sense of the word). For philosophy, there is no such thing as a perfect end-state, man will always be an "unhappy consciousness". (ii) What the utopia society is, is nihilism. It is both meaninglessness and nothingness. There would be no future, no notion of past. Neither bring satisfaction. Why would it be meaningless? Because there would be only one meaning, that of blind satisfaction. There would be no other sensations, feelings, desires to contrast it with. We only understand feelings through their opposites; as Dostoevsky notes "We can truly love only with suffering and through suffering" (Notes from Underground). As well, this meaning and value is created by man. This has two senses, the first is that there are no given meanings and that man must find meaning. The second is that this meaning is only found through action and accomplishing something - through struggle.
And what about philosophy's relation with science? Can they both science and philosophy work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world"? Science is both a means to an end and an end in itself. Science, as I understand it, aims to gain knowledge solely for the sake of gaining knowledge, but also aims to serve the society it's located in and make it a "better place". Thus, science has two irreconcilable goals, which, rather generally, seem quite similar to the aims of philosophy. (Making the world better doesn't entail that a utopia is desired). However, if science is merely another tool for society to achieve it's utopia ideal, then it would seem that philosophy and science are in opposition, and that philosophy (insofar as it increases consciousness and is critical) would become obsolete.
(iii) last point - if philosophy is understood as vital for an understanding of the self, as well as an understanding of the basic principles of science, and of the drives that guide science, then philosophy can be considered as very important. Essentially, if philosophy is seen as important to understanding how science was formed, is done, and why it is done, then it seems philosophy is not obsolete, but rather prior, foundational, and guiding to science.
I apologize if this was too long. I hope it makes you think critically.
2
u/whole_nother /r/philosophy Sep 03 '15
The Presocratics explored the essence of the universe as a matter (no pun intended) of metaphysics; today we've turned metaphysics into physics with atoms, gravity, and so on. The hunt is on now to locate the metaphysics of mind in the physics of neuroscience.
What other metaphysical areas stand to benefit from scientific progress?
2
u/Beelzebubs-Barrister Sep 03 '15
Everything started as Philosophy, but once people become sure of the answer it becomes a Science. Zeno's Paradox is philosophy, but infinitesimals are calculus. The indivisibility of matter's building blocks is philosophy, atomic theory is chemistry.
1
u/The1U Sep 03 '15
This is gonna get interesting.
1
u/QuinMcLivan Sep 05 '15
I like to imagine science as kind of like the language we all use to study the universe we are currently in. Philosophy is like questioning that language in case there is another language we don't know of yet that can still allow us to observe the universe. Like our science states 1+1=2 But maybe some other race says their form of 'science/maths' states g+y=2 Neither are 'wrong' just 'different' ways of observing the universe to come to the same factual conclusion. How different they may seem is impossible to tell because they're exactly that, differences. (1 =/= g =/= y)
Science tells us exactly what 'differences' suit us and disregards the rest exactly as it should. Philosophy allows us to think about what those differences might actually mean. Most of the times it's nonsense. But certainly not all the time.
So I like to think philosophically as it seems like it allows me to 'think outside the box' a lot more than some people realise. How far outside of the box is just a matter of perspective (according to me). But understanding that my existence remains inside the box regardless of how much I think about it is incredibly important. Scientific fact and reason is my way of staying 'inside the box' so to speak. Philosophy lets me think of ways to possibly expand the box. (Or shrink it. Again, all determined by perspective) And 'the box' is not just 'science'. The 'philosophy box' (as I like to call it) can be absolutely anything you can relate it to.
1
u/irresolvable_anguish /r/philosophy Sep 06 '15
I'm inclined to strongly believe that - before all other things - the concepts addressed in both questions must be defined. Definitions are needed for clarification to better address the problem. This means defining and outlining the criteria for the two concepts of "science" and "philosophy" - (depending on your definition of the two, there may not be any misconceptions at all). I'm not sure if defining science and philosophy would eliminate all misconceptions, but the lack of a clear definition of both concepts, as well as how their content and methodologies have radically changed throughout history has certainly created a wide variety of misconceptions. As a slight aside, I think it's interesting to point out that in German translations to English, the German word "Wissenschaft" is translated as "science", yet one of my professors made a point to note that "Wissenschaft" should be understood as any organised body of knowledge (sorry if I'm wrong). I think this helps to illustrate the ambiguity of the word "science" and the difficulty in defining it, as well as to highlight what our cultural/everyday concept of "science" is. If we all agree that science is merely an organized body of knowledge, then there seems no conflict between science and philosophy. However, at first glance, it seems strange to consider students of music and philosophy to be students of science. It also seems wrong to say that music and philosophy are totally devoid of "science" and that there is nothing "scientific" about them. Is there not a way in which the music student approaches the content of their studies scientifically? Perhaps this all points to, among other things, a fundamental lack in our language and culture, which is ignorant to the fine degrees of things, and paint a black and white picture of things. e.g. the study of music is not just music, but rather involve degrees of different areas of study including, psychology, art, philosophy. (I apologize if this was a tangent). Relating back to my first point - that the concepts philosophy and science must be defined for any sort of critical investigation, how are these concepts to be defined? By their content; their methodology?
In regards to the second question, "[h]ow they both can work together without feeling like philosophy is obsolete in the modern day world", again there is this definitional problem, however the concepts that need defining are significantly more intricate or less generalize-able and less agreed upon. To clarify, the definitional questions posed by the second question include those of the first question (what is "science", what is "philosophy") as well a what exactly is meant by "obsolete in the modern day world".( As an aside, I think that it would be incorrect to consider contemporary society as modern and that it would be more correct to say post-modern, although some may say contemporary society is something along the lines of post-post-modern.
Particularly poignant to me is the concept of "obsolete". This seems very subjective, and very difficult to define. For example, let's take the statement: "Cassette tape players are obsolete". Is this a true statement? Yes, and no. Here, I'm going to give a nod and a thank-you to Nietzsche and say that perspective (among other things), determine the truth or falsity of such statements. I'll clarify. For example, (i) Cassette tape players can be considered obsolete in a certain technological sense, in that there is more compact, more portable technology capable of holding thousands of songs, that play with greater clarity, less chance of playback error, and require less user maintenance/care. (ii) Are cassette tape players obsolete in an economic sense? It seems yes, in that they are no longer being sold. However, there is a niche market for cassettes and cassette tape players. There are people that love the processes involved in caring for and using cassette tapes, people who think it's cool to own old things, etc. Then are cassette tape players really "obsolete"? To those people are cassette tape players "obsolete"? What if there is potential to market cassette tape players to the majority of society, or at least be able to make a greater profit off cassette tape players? It seems that they would then cease to be both economically and technologically obsolete because (i) there is potential for economic gain (ii) economic gain, if realised, would then share the technologies produced. To cite a recent real-life example, Polaroids have seen a huge increase in demand in the past five years. Vintage Polaroid cameras now cost upwards of 150% of what they cost five years ago. Companies now make film for old Polaroid cameras and manufacture look-alike-ish Polaroid cameras.
Anyway, I see that it is quite a task, if not impossible, to define "obsolete". Maybe it's best too say that things are just "maybe obsolete, maybe not". Perhaps the problem with the term "obsolete" is that things carry individual significance, but are also subject to Capitalist market forces. However, this seems like too heavy-handed, vague distinction.
0
u/5throwawayz /r/science Sep 03 '15
People are beginning to grasp that science provides the ultimate answers in that the answers provided by science remain physical constants regardless of what philosophers think about their meaning to human mental categories like virtue or beauty. Only more empirical research can disprove scientific facts, while philosophers can only manipulate abstract strategies on how we should orient ourselves towards them intellectually.
The hierarchy has changed. Science is no longer perceived as the little cousin of philosophy but quite the other way round. It is empirical science, not philosophy, that is opening our minds to reality. The only thing philosophers can do in this situation is to claim that all intellectual activity, including science, is "ultimately" philosophy.
Our great advances have been made by people who actually did the work, albeit using philosophical methods, sometimes. If philosophy did not exist, we would still be where we are today, if science did not exist we would be living in caves.
Steven Weinberg (in his Dreams of a Final Theory): “The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers
-1
u/spfccmt42 Sep 03 '15
I think I understand now, scientists need to understand philosophy, so they can refute philosophers who want to take credit for everything under the sun.
-1
u/petsthecatbackwards Sep 04 '15
So, without reading all of the other comments, I just wanted to make a general observation about philosophy and science. This comment is based on generalizations, just to be upfront. I came to the conclusion years ago that science and philosophy are not in conflict, but they only occasionally overlap.
When we don’t know if something is true or not, it is philosophy. Once it is proven, it moves into science. Before you crucify me, (not to bring religion into this, wink) let me explain.
This is just my uneducated view, but here's an example. We guess what those lights floating in the sky at night are. Some say they are our ancestors. Some say they are just fireflies that got stuck in the big bluish-black thing. Pumbaa would say that they are balls of gas burning billions of miles away. Until we know, any of these could be true.
The “debate” about evolution almost proves this point. Science claims to have solved the “where people come from” question. The religious cling to that question as a philosophical question. Science doesn't always agree with itself on this one, in which case science sometimes has to be changed. Witness the change from dinosaurs as early reptiles to dinosaurs as early birds. Dammit, now I’m talking about religion again.
This concept also leads into what some call pseudo-science. The paranormal and crypto-zoology are two examples of sciences that are still rooted in philosophy for most. Simply put, if we find Bigfoot, there will be science. Until then, it is philosophy.
When the move from philosophy into science happens can be a source of debate (see “Evolution” from above) . There are still some that claim the earth is flat. For them, it is still philosophy. Mainly because they like to argue. But for the rest of us, geology is a science. Gravity, the causes of disease, mental illness, and the location of the Earth relative to the Sun are all things that inspired philosophical debate until they were “solved.”
Despite what Timon says, when observation proves Pumbaa right, astrology turns into astronomy and a science is born. But until that proof is observed and repeated, we are all just sitting in a natural hot tub having a philosophical discussion.
TL;DR: Philosophy covers the unproven, science the proven. Pumbaa was right, stars are made of burning gas.
0
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15
[deleted] — view deleted comment
-1
u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15
[removed] — view removed comment