1. Philosophy clarifies the kinds of questions science asks- enabling answers that are more precise. 2. Philosophy expands the kind of questions science can ask- enlarging the scope of problems that science can solve. 3. Philosophy enhances experimental design and the robustness of evidence- strengthening the scientific method. 4. Philosophy defines the boundaries between science and pseudo science, marking certain fields or claims as un-scientific. 5. Philosophy sets the limits of science, distinguishing science from non-science.
I call BS. Absolutely none of the above is true. Philosophy is a millstone stone around the neck of science, nothing more. It's a way of sneaking in pseudo-science.
@@PoopyPolice your school sounds more fun than mine. In my attempt at a BA I gave up when the first assessment used source material from an episode of Xena warrior princess to reflect on its inherent sexism and racism in our historical representation of Cleopatra. Seems my latent biases will forever doom me to remain an uneducated peasant.
Complete nonsense, a complete fantasy. Philosophy contributes nothing to the practice of science, and struggles even to come up with an adequate description of the ‘the scientific method’, which is in fact quite ordinary and everyday common sense rigorously applied. The kinds of questions that science can address are continually expanded by advances in technique, mass spectrometry, the LHC and so on, not by philosophy, which explains why the average working scientist has no interest whatsoever in academic philosophy.
"The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason" - Bertrand Russell
Unfortunately, what is considered "philosophy" in the Universities is the study of certain specific famous philosophers. If science was taught in the same way, the entire curriculum would be focused on studying the biography of famous scientists, rather than on the understanding and advancing the actual science.
Knowing previous scientific ideas is important. Knowing the names and biographies of previous scientists is not. What the philosophy curriculums typically focus on is the exact opposite of what philosophy should be about.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky very nicely put. True what you said about study of philosophy in educational institutions. It doesn't have to be that way but it has been. Science is a process, a tool to understand and deal with whatever it is we are trying to find, explain, or solve. The product of such process is what lives, gets used, questioned, revised, or discarded altogether. The people who put that tool to use are not worshipped.
@fynes leigh science is a method and a fundamental step within philosophy. Knowledge is essential for our philosophy to be able to produce wise claims about the world.
The most important use that was not mentioned is "what to use science for." More broadly, science can never answer the question "what should we do?" Science without philosophy is about as useless as a hammer absent a task, or a person to wield it. In a time where science is taken as seriously as it's ever been, and many feel a lack of purpose in their difficult lives, philosophy must be recognized as our way of redefining our ends and purposes. Science will help make all of that possible.
Science is a tool. An abstract and objective method of questioning reality under controlled and defined parameters. It's only concern is the observed behavior of certain phenomena that occur in nature, it is our best way of finding out how the universe works, as it is. I agree with the analogy of a hammer being useless without a person to wield it as it goes well with what science truly is, a tool. You can't use a hammer to move a car, or to wash the dishes or to even tie your shoes. It would be inefficient. I think that given the knowledge about the physical universe that science has managed to uncover, every human has the daunting and never ending task similar to that of Sisyphus, but for us it is to figure out what this means for ourselves.
Fascinating and informative as always! Maybe another function of the philosophy of science could be how we use scientific advances and achievements in an ethical way? Or is this the subject of a different field?
@fynes leigh By "we" I was referring to humanity in general, you might say it's a bit abstract. I suppose it can be rephrased as "...how scientific advances and achievements can be used in an ethical way"
I will give you a less abstract answer. Ethics of science is no doubt philosophical in nature, but of a more practical kind. As far as I am aware there are already several subfields dealing with this subject, most widely known is medical and bioethics.
Just as much as science needs metaphysics, hence the philosophical branch. Heck, even pseudoscience respectively when looked at with the right set of eyes. All knowledge is valuable.
Yes I agree but I think it is more important to practice seeing reality in an unbiased way because reality simply is what it is without our perception and this is what so many including philosophers do not understand.
This is indeed an excellent introduction to philosophy of science. It reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s programmatic question of philosophy of science in the age of relativity: how does one relate the crude data of sense to the space, time, and matter of mathematical physics? (Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, 1915) Accordingly, Russell thought that "Philosophy...is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation." (A History of Western Philosophy, 1945) Hence "The problem we have to discuss is whether there is any reason for believing in what is called 'the uniformity of nature'. The belief in the uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions)" (Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, 1959, p. 63) Russell, of course, gave his own lasting contribution to mathematical logic by advocating a research program in mathematical philosophy, which certainly influenced logical positivism and analytic philosophy of science www.nythamar.com/science.html
Russel also placed emphasis on modal logic and ontology, but not on words and ontologic committment to the extent that Plato or Quine did. Strange that I think this series is shallow and largely ill-conceived clickbait nonsense, designed to admit within its purview certain wrongheaded ideas as possibilities (like existence of supreme beings etc..) presumably to pander to a pre-conditionally religious or superstitious (US) audience (see other vids in this series). For Quine followers (a rational american) the ontologic mistakes are too numerous to ignore or forgive....
To me, it seems obvious that assuming science to be external, objective and absolute allows one to conclude that science is external, objective and absolute.
For anyone in any field to claim absolute certainty about anything too readily accepts information as fact .. .to be uncertain is uncomfortable...to be certain is ridiculous Socrates
@fynes leigh i encourage my daughter to say "i havent done it yet" rather than "i cant do it". So because of evolution (if you choose to believe in that) i may one day stand on my own shoulders, just like a shoulder stand might be interpreted as standing on your shoulders so semantics plays into this also. I just like for people to realize and speak to others as if they can admit that their words and verbal presentations are opinion, hypothesis or belief. And thanks for your response.
@@1974jrod that claim of yours sounded like the theistic claim "disbelief is a form of belief". That is a fallacy of ambiguity you used there. Uncertainty is the lack of certainty on specific claims... full stop. Uncertainty on its own excludes certainty by definition.
I'm surprised I didn't hear the "shut up and calculate" ethos in the discussion. There are many scientists who demarcate their objectives as (only) being able to predict the outcome of experiments. That leaves pretty wide intellectual areas including reality, meaning, and ethics available where careful thinking is valuable. And, of course, scientists are very valuable as philosophers.
IN order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge. Science previously known as Physika (Aristotle's physics) and Natural philosophy is nothing more than a Philosophical category that was forced to split from the unmonitored academia of Philosophy. As late as 1930 scientists were labeled philosophers and they published their papers in philosophical journals. Until this day scientists are awarded with PhDs (Doctor of Philosophy). Aristotle was the first to acknowledge science (physika) as the second most important step of any Philosophical inquiry. In reality when we have the ability to gather data we do sciences, when not we just do philosophy. There is philosophy practiced within scientific disciplines producing scientific theories , hypotheses and interpretations which we label it "science".There is also philosophy outside science which are very important i.e Philosophy of science but usually the principle of "free inquiry" allows tons of pseudo philosophy to sneak in academic publications along with really great philosophical work.
@fynes leigh I find it odd that philosophy isnt taught in our schools but it isnt surprising that it isnt. Philosophy doesnt necessarily involve the physical and material while public education in the modern age puts an entire focused emphasis on the material. If every child was encouraged to dwell into philosophy theyd then would have the tools to succeed and problem solve rather than be told to know x, y, and z so that they can get a job and drudge through life getting paid to do something they hate instead of doing whats meaningful.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you're coflating wisdom with knowledge when we get our wisdom from experience, not knowledge. Knowledge is useless and empty unless you can apply it practically. It may as well not exist. I noticed a person will use the term "psuedo philosophy" when they want to dismiss something.
@@postplays No you don't understand the relation between knowledge and wisdom. 1. Gathering Experience is knowledge. 2. Gathering Systematic knowledge from specific methodologies is knowledge. Knowledge is the basis of any wise claim. i.e. a claim "you can use your window to exit your house if your main door is jammed" is a wise claim. NOT KNOWING that your window is located at the top floor of a tall building.....that makes your "wise claim" stupid. IN ORDER TO practice Philosophy you need to work on verified knowledge claims in order for your conclusions to be WISE. If you don't understand this simple fact than you either dishonest or mentally challenge. mate...no offense. This is a fact acknowledged by the father of the Philosophical method, Aristotle. So don't make the same ignorant claim again mate.
Good philosophy allows thinkers from repeating mistaken ideas explored before. Prevents thinkers from previously explored dead ends. That makes history important.
@fynes leigh you are funny mate. I just pointed out that science is part of philosophy....and you came up with a spreadsheet on psyche and unlabeled apparatus.... We are in agreement on the relation of science...but you sound confused on what psychology is.
@@hkicgh7277 Logic is to philosophy what words is to a language. Philosophy is the application of logic on our knowledge in order to produce wise claims about the world. Its in the etymology of the word
Philosophy does all those things you mentioned at the end, but you forgot one: Philosophy teaches scientists to be aware of their assumptions and to question those assumptions, rather than not even being aware of them or accepting automatically they are valid assumptions. For example, you have an assumption you ought to question that "science is king." You ought to question that assumption. He was kind of wild in other respects, but Feyerabend would challenge you about that assumption.
I think Lakatos largely has it right: as it pertains to science, philosophies singular contribution is the generation of research programs, which are developed (or destroyed) in scientific practise.
One of my pet projects in philosophy of science, and this might help give a good feel of the discipline, concerns whether the *prediction* of data by a theory T rather than the *accommodation* of data by T offers more justification our belief in the truth of T. There are quite strong pre-analytic intuitions that data prediction offers T an advantage over what might be thought to be the ad hoc accommodation by T (ie. constructing T to fit or accommodate the data). Tutoring those intuitions into an argument *for* prediction; an argument that would offer some rational support for our inductive practices constitutes a research programme in the philosophy of science.
One can also look at current science as though it is a slow moment in philosophy, we have gained a certain kind of economic prowess from war fueled science so we now feel this style of philosophy is usefull - when there was no such aggressive conflict we asked questions in freely, wildly freely different ways, not asking those questions doesn't mean we are finally "doing better"; we might just be extremely scared of loosing wars now.
Both Complexity and simplicity are now entering dialogue and discussion about consciousness. Is there a greater need for simplicity to play a greater roll in these debates? Are there some human beings who do not have souls? Can a person decide that they do not wish to live after they die? J.B.
"Philosophers aren't going to help people make nice dinners" 9:42. Food preparation is best performed in a higher state of loving consciousness - Zen macrobiotics.
I like to think both science and (formal) philosophy as products of a Human Thought (intended caps). Philosophizing is one way of directing thoughts trough an analytical process, on which formal philosphers are trained and have been building schemes (theoretical structures) through history. Then, science is a way of verificating schemes via empirical evidence obtained by controlled methods.
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'.
Primarily, science is created by set of general principles rather than with a method. The three general principles of science are: philosophical, foundational, and general. The philosophical principle is logical positivism; the foundational principle is abstraction; the general principal is mathematical formulation. Logical Positivism is the philosophical principle that defines the role of science and isolates it from metaphysics and religion. Positivism is a fast track to scientism, the belief that science is the only path to understanding the true nature of reality. Positivism: (i) rejects the idea that reality has some purpose, (ii) rejects attempts to explain natural phenomena by an essence or a secret cause of things, (iii) rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses, (iv) advocates the study of constant relationships without delving into the underlying causes.
Philosophy of science etymologically defined is Philo= love, sophi= sothing/sophisticated language, science= to know. Therefore Philosophy of science = the love of proper and sophisticated language in order to know. Therefore Philosophy of science does not mean to love sophisticated language in order to remain ignorant or not know.
Let me share my understanding of the topic Science can explain what things happen but can't explain what they are Philosophy helps science in clarifying the concepts Initially science began with philosophy as early name of science was natural philosophy and physics was a part of it.With the time as science develops the graph of philosophy began to collapse Philosophy defines the boundary between science and pseudo (fictious and unreal) science.
If I may paraphrase Alfred North Whitehead, scientists frequently appear to be trying to reject metaphysics. What they are really doing is attempting to prevent you from criticising their own metaphysics.
Modern science is a philosophy presented by galileo in its quantitative approach to understanding and analysis. For science to understand all truths then all truths must be quantitative, but how can that be when there exist qualitative or experiential phenomena and then too how do we account for that in reasoning and analysis moving forward
An unbiased comment: the two inform each other. However, I find it hard to accept much of the role philosophy presently tries to make for itself since science answers the biggie questions regarding objective reality. For example: “We don’t need a scientifically based or a strong philosophical underpinning to validate science. All we need to know is that the method works: that it produces results that all scientists could in principle replicate (if they can’t the results are discarded), and it produces-apologies to Jane Austen-truths universally acknowledged. It also produces progress. It cures diseases, flies us to the moon, improves our crops. No other “way of knowing” does that-certainly not religion, Brown’s favorite hobbyhorse. And yes, the practice of science rests implicitly on the value that it’s good to find out what is true and real, but does Brown disagree with that? In the end, the method is validated by its results and needs no a priori justification. After all, the methods of science weren’t devised before science was practiced-we simply learned from experience that if we wanted to find truth, we had to go about it in a certain way.” whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/andrew-brown-there-are-lots-of-ways-besides-science-to-find-truth/
I agree and appreciate all the arguments posed by the philosophers in this video. HOWEVER, I'm under the impression that they failed miserably in providing CONCRETE examples of actual collaboration between Philosophers (not Philosophy) and Scientists (not Science). Which works have been done? How these works have been producing benefits to all, including tangible and intangible values? And so on... Also, my impression is that the Philosophers in these interviews acted defensively with the same kind of arrogance showed by the Scientists that don't understand (and don't want to) the position and value of Philosophy. Being the ones who are proud of making the right questions, they didn't make even the simplest ones. For example: why Scientists are progressively making those questions about Philosophy? What does this mean for both fields? Who is failing? Are the Philosophers lost and gradually distancing themselves from the basic questions and needs of the current state of the society, so that the Science is filling that gap and providing answers needed by the humanity right now? Are the Scientists dangerously distancing themselves from the basic ethical, moral, human questions and capitulating to the massively present political and power? Or just genuinely don't care about Philosophy due a lack on their professional formation? None of these were made. They limited themselves to say "I'm his/her daddy but he/she has abandoned me. He/she's just an ingrate kid that has a lot to learn in life."
I imagine most scientists just get on with it, especially if they are engaged in standard science, which has been pretty much routinised in terms of issues, concepts, procedures and explanations. Where this not the case (the cutting edge of quantum mechanics and cosmology, as contributors have pointed out, but myriad other multi-disciplinary areas in and pretty much all of psychology social sciences) they will themselves engage with the clarificatory and logical issues fundamental to philosophy. They might talk to their philosophical colleagues, and, if they find it useful, continue the conversation. I liked Dennett’s idea of the philosopher as the expert in mistakes already made in these abstract areas. Of course, some of their less engaged colleagues will no doubt continue make occasional smart quips over a beer or two. It’s called academic bitchiness.
fynes leigh You’re quite right, I should have said “... that I know of...” For all I know other labs are buzzing with speculation about these hot abstract issues, slagging off philosophers (instead of their more immediate colleagues or rivals) and so on. Thanks for the correction.
This separation of philosophy from science and the craze to keep the two apart is mind boggling! Put another way, philosophy is love of knowledge or is it wisdom, so I thought! Another shocking thong is that if science has nothing to do with philosophy, what does it mean to hold a PhD in Chemistry, physics, biochemistry etc? In my view, this efforts of separating the two has watered down science in the 18th, 19th and 20th century and must be shunned in the 21st century. These definitional silos don't quite have a place, going forward. Recently I did a TH-cam video speaking for the need for religion, science and philosophy to work together seamlessly. Many solutions of problems will be found at the intersection of disciplinary Ven diagrams, I'm so truly persuaded!
scientific method is a product of epistemology , its the result (not final result) of what the best way to have knowledge , and every scientist is philosopher in every reasonable evaluating or thinking about the relation or causation or strength of evidance that support there conclusion
All science is predicated upon epistemological philosophy (i.e. things and how can we know them). Science then being hyper-focused philosophy. Mathematics is merely applied logic which is philosophy. From mathematics arise physics. Physics being applied mathematics. Chemistry merely being applied physics. Biology merely being applied chemistry. The list goes on. I would say any scientist who doesn't understand the importance of philosophy doesn't understand what it means to be truly human. Science needs a check and that check is philosophy (i.e. ethics).
Science is Philosophy on better data. Science is one of the six basic steps in any philosophical inquiry. You can not do science without philosophy and you can only do pseudo philosophy without science.
Science is King and Philosophy steadies it’s crown? I was hoping for Philosophy is King and Science is a member of its court. how is Science not a subset and entirely dependent on Philosophy? for meaningful hypothesis, validity and interpretation?
When you ask "Does Science care?", you are singulising, externalising & personifying. Results are empirical, therefore Scientific, conclusions are Philosophical. That "Science", doesn't need "Philosophy", is a Philosophical argument.
Philosophy, I would say are the stairs to the upper floors of scientific investigating labs. It's not just the word philosophy, its the feeling, it's perception, sometimes knowing for sure. Where does it come from? maybe our genes carry informations from generation to generation since our first ancestor was born. Being able to recall some recorded memories of the past, would explain some mysteries, like dreams or sudden intuition. Without the philosophical support science would miss a very important factor of recognition. To let go, is a difficult decission for anyone confronted with a new experience, whether its jumping from a tower, or riding on a high-speed train, but with a scientific logical mind, can easy figure out nothing wrong will happen in the train if I let go, or jumping from a tower tied on a bungee rope. It will help to combine both, for sure.
@@Exnexus As soon as we learn, too much, as some of us think, our "ego" gets in the way and ignore many possible useful philosophical signs and spiritual thoughts that could maybe be the key to closed doors. Of course we have to analyze and differ from what is a brain disorder, and what is deeper knowledge to unknown terrains.
@@Exnexus I think we have to differ between natural processes and possible capable abilities. But we never have to forget the individualism of our being, there it starts, and there it ends. I mean we can do a lot together as team work, but not all. We have an individual story of our own, who gathers them and what for, I don't know yet.
@@Exnexus Sorry Chris I have to do some things now, thanks for your time, but if you have some interesting thoughts to share dont hesitate to tell me about it, good day pal.
Philosophy is the ;adder with six steps. Science, as Aristotle suggested in his create classification work, is the second most important step of this ladder. 1. epistemology 2. Physika (empirical investigation/science) 3. Metaphysics 4. Aesthetics 5. Ethics 6. Politics. Back to the top
@@nickolasgaspar9660 see, this is the problem people are facing. The influenced information hinders own logical thinking to many topics, most assume it is right what have been taught, but we see there were many corrections made in the past till our present time. I don't depend alone on learned lectures, it doesn't bring me further if I don't use my own conclusions to the subject.
Love how this whole video is a defense of philosophy in light of scientific inquiry. Mainly because some popular speakers on science simply dismiss philosophical practice. If I recall, Hawking and Tyson dismissed philosophy.
The philosophy usually practice outside scientific disciplines and on non naturalistic principles is dead for more than 2.000. Philosophy is the main tool even in Science. All scientific theories and interpretations are philosophical frameworks on naturalistic principles.
Well truth is an evaluation term we use on claims that are in agreement with current facts. Since our observations change (due to technological advances ), facts change too. So we should expect our truth claims to change too. So we constantly improve our truth claims (get closer to the truth, especially in science) but we can never say when a specific claim is the "Ultimate truth". So the problem is how to identify ultimate and absolute truth, not real world truth claims.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Based on reality we can never really know if we indeed are getting any closer to the truth. Answers never tend to lead to the truth, just more questions. IMO
@@mindofmayhem. truth is an abstract concept. It doesn't exist. What we can do is use this concept as an evaluation term based on metrics that we are able to verify. So in real world, true is a claim that is in agreement with CURRENT facts. This is the best we can do. Improving our claims to fit our new discoveries (new facts) is what we describe by the term (closer to the truth). Abstract concepts like truth, freedom, honesty etc are processes that highlight specific idealistic goals . We should be very careful with our language if our goal is to understand abstract ideas. Magical thinking can mesh things up
What philosophy reminds scientists is that we never totally understood where it (all thought) comes from. It all points to things inside of us or how we work. Not all scientists are skilled at understanding complex mechanisms hence their own chauvinism at not understanding blocks the light. The "scientists" most competent to comment and understand mind should be Engineers, not theorists.
Such a brilliant show. Brilliant man. As an undergrad engineering student in SDSU it was required reading and I thought it was useless waste of time, but this perspective sure changes my mind.
We have seen in this video some very good reasons why science should value philosophy - quite aside from the fact that, in a sense, science relies on philosophy (in its presuppositions and methodology). As a philosopher, however, I am more interested in whether science is of value to philosophy. It seems to me that it has none - for one very good reason: the most fundamental philosophical problems we face are the same as those that faced Plato and Aristotle. Science simply provides more examples in which these problems come to light, it does not solve them. Indeed, it adds one more to the repertoire: What is it to do Science?
Science is philosophy on higher standards and far better data. Those who value science must understand that data without a theoretical interpretation(philosophy) are useless. BUt this video is not the best way to understand why we should value philosophy and we should not accept any philosophical just because its a product of a philosopher. The reasons why scientists reject philosophy(outside of a scientific discipline) are important and justified.
Nickolas Gaspar You are right! We should never embrace a philosophical belief because it comes from a philosopher, we should do so on the grounds of good reason. However, science and philosophy are not on the same scale with one or the other holding a higher score according to data. They are about quite different questions and issues.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Here are some: 1. Is God real? 2. Is mind physical? 3. What is beauty? 4. Are numbers real? 5. What is free will? 6. Are there universals? 7. What is goodness? 8. What is science? 9. Why is ether something (anything at all) rather than (literally) nothing? 10. What is knowledge? I can anticipate some of your responses but I'll just let you make them if you feel so inclined. Cheers, Theo.
@@theophilus749 1. Is God real? -not a philosophical question!!!! If you accept that as philosophical then you must accept a similar question for Zeus, Mitra, Osiris,pixies, the spaghetti monster, leprechauns etc. Its "a poisoning the well" /"begging the question" fallacious question. Making an ontological question on zero indications or objective evidence is pseudo philosophy. 2. Is mind physical? -NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION!!! We don't even have evidence for the existence of other dimensions other than the physical, not to mention that the brain is currently a sufficient and necessary explanation for the phenomenon.....so again its a begging the question fallacy. 3. What is beauty? This is a philosophical question. -Aesthetics a philosophical category! Science's input in this category helped us understand our biological predisposition and how it defines our perspective of beauty and how beautiful things "reward" our brains through the secretion of endorphins and explained so many things about this "philosophical" question. A philosophical question, sure! Could philosophy alone provide any answers....of course not. High quality of scientific knowledge answered what is beauty. Maybe "what is/ins't beautiful"(personal preferences) can be a far better question inside a philosophical framework. 4. Are numbers real? Again not a philosophical question....a poisoning the well fallacy. Numbers are symbols we use to represent the information of quantity. Nothing mysterious or weird with numbers. Numbers do not exist like other physical things(spatial or temporal properties) but they are real mental concepts (symbols). 5. What is free will? Again ....one more fallacy. First we need to prove that our will is free, free from what and then try to define what free will is. Not a philosophical question. 6. Are there universals? This is a philosophical question. Where? in our minds. Sure. We classify things according to universals. Since empirical verification is needed....that is not a pure philosophical question. Science is needed to answer this. 7. What is goodness?This is a philosophical question -Its a label we put on specific behavior so again empirical verification of the quality of different behaviors is needed. Not a pure philosophical question. Science is needed to answer this question. 8. What is science? Philosophy of science. this is a philosophical question, that includes science. Science needs to ask this question too in order to improve its methodologies. 9. " Why is ether something (anything at all) rather than (literally) nothing?" -Not a philosophical question. Why questions assume teleology (intention or purpose) which they need to be demonstrated first. Science can answer the reason how existence is sustained in the cosmos( quantum relations)....but the "why" question is a fallacious one. 10. What is knowledge? -This is a philosophical question. So we can agree by using philosophy we can make really good questions, inside and outside science (like No 3,6,7,8,9,10) But I can not see how philosophy can answer those questions without any scientific input. All our scientific theories are answers to our philosophical questions. I can not see how you can separate science from philosophy or how you can arrive to answers without actual empirical investigation by science. of course we have the really bad pseudo philosophical questions in your examples...that they are unanswerable, not because they are hard, but because they are fallacious.
Read this! This is the only possible, truly unifying and conclusive ‘theory of everything’ in existence! The questions of what the universe is, where it came from, what it evolves towards, and how intimately it relates to human existence-are revealingly answered in terms of morphology, as they begin to arise from Plato’s forms and Sheldrake’s work on morphogenetics, but mostly by genetics itself.
He who holds the ruler mustn't be the same person who asked the question, and when they are sometimes the 'answers' can be rather questionable. It's also still pretty unclear as to which is more important the questions or the answers.
I love the fact that science can't tell you what anything IS, from your table, to a planet, to mind, leaving open the powerful logically consistent explanation offered by Idealism. Minds that limit their knowledge to science even entirely discount the value of direct experience as any measure of truth, which is lolzy because they can't know anything at all, including what science offers, without using mind
Philosophy of science is a great tool to understand science. And by Philosophy of Science I mean the descriptive aspect of the study NOT THE normative (i.e.Kuhn) Descriptive Philosophy of science has a nearly 600 years of epistemic success...plenty to analyze why science is so effective in what it does!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Why only 600 years, pyramids can be 8.000 years old and still standing tall. Because science, but they were erected by and for philosophy. I can hardly imagine more useless structured than that, all they're good for is attracting money from tourists. It must be that compound interest thing, where you always start another cycle with investment you started with and all interest accumulated, so each cycle you earn more than before. It's also about tolerance, perfect structures would collapse a long time ago. Caves and pyramids can withstand time, so maybe this is what we should use when space colonization will begin. This is how philosophy got us so far, nature imitate art.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Are you sure about that, Egyptians didn't start from nothing, they were building all kinds of structures and learn from failed attempts. It's one thing to erect a single monumental structure and completely another when you build a sustainable mega city that will last thousands of years. Scientific method was established all around empires after philosophers and thinkers agreed on a model, since they couldn't find reasonable objections. World became explored and human society went global, science became leading global intellectual and spiritual movement that is driving civilization and universal human rights. 600 years ago nobody knew American continents exist except native Indians. They didn't even know if Earth is a sphere or is it an infinite flat plane maybe, somebody had to go and sail around it first and prove it's a ball.
Dennett is right about apple trees and human behavior? But what drives the need to eat from apple trees and see apples as the "product" to drive the human behavior?
What we do as social science students is first to pose questions (philosophical) such as what is science. I get that social science cannot do without philosophy because we would be saying after all sociology is not even science. Philosophy is what makes sociology science. Thanks for this amazing video!
Science and its method, though, pretty good and excitings, it is limited by its own parameters: it can only osbserve and test material/physicial realities. Its scope is narrowed by those same definitions that allow it to be. And it is circular, since we must assume it is the right method to investigate our reality, and that everything tested by it, is must be real or correct. But what gives to the scientific method its validity?
Stu Mas , subjective perceptions alone are not able to be analyzed by science. However, if such perceptions happen by individuals within a group then they possibly could be analyzed by science. Philosophy adds nothing to the actual processes of science.
I would argue that the assumptions underpinning the scientific method are synonymous with the assumptions underpinning common sense. Further, I would argue that these assumptions are more evident than the premises of any argument that can be brought against them. No amount of philosophizing will remove ones belief in the existence of the external world, for example.
@@gdn5001 , I do argue that "common sense" and intuition are NOT synonymous with the scientific method. If we still depended on it, we would still be in the Dark Ages: www.alternet.org/2013/01/your-brain-flawed-12-scientific-reasons-human-beings-are-wildly-irrational/
Science is a tool. A powerful tool to understand and affect reality, but a tool nonetheless. The tool cannot tell you how to use the tool itself, what’s the better way to use the tool or how to improve the tool. The tool cannot tell you how to fix the tool itself or when you should use it or who is able to use it. Science may tell you, descriptively, what people value the most, but science cannot tell you, what people should value, because science is not prescriptive, nor it should be. Science is a map, a big big map of the world, full of smaller and smaller maps. Science is the *art* of making this mega map. But the map cannot tell you where you should go, it only tells you what’s the better way to get there, if you are lucky.
The importance of Philosophy is to teach scientists that science is, by definition, based on the assumption that every accepted knowledge is temporary and, therefore, based on the inexistence of scientific truth. If one looks for truth the place to go is religion - religion is the realm of things that are thruths by definition. Perhaps this conversion of science into the hegemonic faith is a symptom of scientists ignoring philosophy. People are dying around the world because people in the RAND Co. decided that human beings are selfish by nature because that made Game Theory problems reach stable solutions ... even though on empirical tests none of RAND's secretaries behaved selfish.
In my humble view, asking 'what IS (my emphasis) philosophy of science?' is already making an irrevocable ontologic mistake of the profoundest kind, and skewing the rational response of any inquirer/responder pair. Science and philosophy are sets of concepts, ideas, and ARE, therefore, nothing - in the generally accepted meaning of the verb 'to be'. WV Quine pointed out all of these elementary mistakes (manners of speaking) in his books; From a logical point of view, and Word and Object (both Harvard, 1950's).
@@nickolasgaspar9660 This clickbait philosophy channel attracts minds of various levels of sophistication. You write a (partial) sentence that is meaningless without specifying which words, in which languages, while the vogue rhetorical flourish is vulgar, right?. Please re-formulate to allow a considered response. Consider the word; everything.., It describes all things that exist. This, for example, does not have another (except locally agreed) meaning, and other similar examples spring to mind. What is your point?
@@doce7606 you stated that :"Science and philosophy are sets of concepts, ideas, and ARE, therefore, nothing " Both words (science and philosophy) describe different aspects under the same concept. We label Science and Philosophy: 1. Academic Establishments. 2. The end result (knowledgeable and wise frameworks about the world). 3. The method (The actual methods used by those establishments). SO saying that science and philosophy is just sets of concepts therefore nothing...that is factually wrong. They are both methods of investigation with different goals. Science seeks claims which are in agreement with current facts and Philosophy seeks knowledge in order to produce wise claims about the world. So Science is an essential tool of Philosophy and philosophy is an essential tool for our efforts to understand the world. If those things are "nothing" to you then, why on earth you are in here talking about them!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 a) who are we? : one must learn not to put words into other peoples mouths (even, perhaps especially, third parties'); (b) where do these (1,2,3) assertions arise from?; the list is silly. 1, particularly, is nonsense. A 'scientific establishment' is (presumably) a building with people and equipment in it (or many such), those people use a method, called science ( a concept of method of thought), to conduct their activities. that is all. Science is NOT an object. People and building ARE objects. The rest is therefore non-sequitur (except see*), except for the last question. Why be concerned with elementary mistakes of linguistic logic at the initial stage, particularly with reference to ontology..? The reason is that these initial misconceptions are the greatest impediment to understanding anything. First, one must, as plato found, decide which things are objects, and which are not. Being a concept doesn't mean something is unimportant, just that it doesn't have spatio-temporal reference, like people or buildings. Then one can ask other philosophical questions (conceptual questions), like * (your numbers); (2) How can a scientific end result be known before beginning then verified..? 3. How can the method be validated..? this IS philosophy of science (ie these are conceptual questions, not questions of existence)......
@@doce7606 "who are we?" -oh lol you are that kind of guy. We=THE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIES WHO ARE INTERESTED COLLECTIVELY IN THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM THROUGH THE SYSTEMATIZATION OF METHODS. "one must learn not to put words into other peoples mouths (even, perhaps especially, third parties');" -that would be great. " (b) where do these (1,2,3) assertions arise from?;" lol they are called "common usages of a word" mate. If you open a dictionary you will see that words have more than one usage. i.e.Science is a word we(we the members of the species and of our society) use to : 1. LABEL the scientific establishment/community and all its monitored functions (faculties, publications, peer reviewing etc etc etc etc) 2.LABEL the end product (scientific knowledge, scientific study, scientific theory, scientific interpetation). 3. LABEL the METHOD ..(Scientific method, Scientific methodologies). This is Philosophy of Science 101 mate. Why wasting my time when you are obviously totally ignorant on the subject mate! I think you are more interested in playing with language than accepting other common usages of words ps. "3. How can the method be validated..? " If you can use a computer to send your ignorant comments about science...then the scientific method used to describe the Standard Model and QM....is validated..don't you think? lol Take care.
I think that Dan Dennett has a lot to add to any discussion of this kind, but his delivery just rubs me the wrong way. I probably don't disagree with his assertions, but something about him makes me want to.
Philosophy makes Science make sense? That depends on the philosophy … Newton was honest about the difference between mathematical modeling and an understanding of mechanism. Hence "Hypotheses non fingo". Which does not mean that philosophy/metaphysics cannot explain the mechanism … But, unfortunately, academic metaphysics and philosophy in the West mostly derives from the unfortunate misunderstandings of Aristotle - which underly the (generally unnoticed, but obvious) paradigm problem. Take a hint from the physicists who made the biggest leaps, and extend your reading list Eastward. Without the necessary basic training in thinking and understanding, all that could do was shake their confidence in the paradigm they call "classical" and "real". If one wants to understand the (obviously simple and singular) mechanism behind the studied phenomena … In the West, one needs to rewind to Thales. In the East, just ask any Advaita Master to explain the double-slit experiment. And, if they can't, please let me know so I can take them off my "recommended teachers after I go" list ;) In the meantime, be ever so careful. "Extra dimensions", "Many worlds" etc. are the new woo which makes the Epicyclists' Crystal Spheres look positively sensible. Until the paradigm problem is noticed it can't be fixed. Dont buy the woo. Let physicists do the data-fitting, and leave understanding to those (far from the academic firewalls and echo chambers) who have been trained in thinking and understanding.
I played John Hawthorne at chess twice in the 1980s and also stayed a night at his family home. Back then he claimed to be an indoctrinated Roman Catholic😋
For Aristotle science and mathematics was Philosophy. Philosophy to the ancients meant the pursuit of truth through mathematics and science. However, this idea only caught on in the West after Isaac Newton. The reason science is limited is because there is a limit to human imagination a point beyond which the human brain cannot comprehend. Will AI be able to extend human imagination? AI is a poor substitute for human thought and although it will help humans solve current problems, it will not extend human imagination beyond human limits, after all AI is simply human control over nature.
Science is an essential step in true and meaningful philosophy. After all Science used to be known as Natural Philosophy and its theories are based on the philosophical position of Methodological Naturalism....It impossible to escape philosophy and its impossible to practice meaningful philosophy without science
Another evidence of the importance of Philosophy is the hosts assumption that science was never wrong and never caused needless pain and violence. I would recommend him this class from Stanford available on youtube: th-cam.com/video/NNnIGh9g6fA/w-d-xo.html Basically, Philosophy looks at stuff from all possible points of view and part of their work is finding all points of view, btw. For instance, if a philosopher were doing this video we would, at the end, have a at least an idea of what Philosophy of Science is.
1. Philosophy clarifies the kinds of questions science asks- enabling answers that are more precise.
2. Philosophy expands the kind of questions science can ask- enlarging the scope of problems that science can solve.
3. Philosophy enhances experimental design and the robustness of evidence- strengthening the scientific method.
4. Philosophy defines the boundaries between science and pseudo science, marking certain fields or claims as un-scientific.
5. Philosophy sets the limits of science, distinguishing science from non-science.
THANKY OU I NEEDED THIS FOR MY HOMEOWRK YOU JUST SAVED MY LIFE
I call BS. Absolutely none of the above is true. Philosophy is a millstone stone around the neck of science, nothing more. It's a way of sneaking in pseudo-science.
@@PoopyPolice your school sounds more fun than mine. In my attempt at a BA I gave up when the first assessment used source material from an episode of Xena warrior princess to reflect on its inherent sexism and racism in our historical representation of Cleopatra. Seems my latent biases will forever doom me to remain an uneducated peasant.
Complete nonsense, a complete fantasy. Philosophy contributes nothing to the practice of science, and struggles even to come up with an adequate description of the ‘the scientific method’, which is in fact quite ordinary and everyday common sense rigorously applied. The kinds of questions that science can address are continually expanded by advances in technique, mass spectrometry, the LHC and so on, not by philosophy, which explains why the average working scientist has no interest whatsoever in academic philosophy.
"The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man
who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived
from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from
convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his
deliberate reason"
- Bertrand Russell
21p
Thank you Robert Lawrence Kuhn for bringing academia to the world.
@fynes leigh lol...you are that kind of guy.....lol
Is he anything to do with Kuhn and Feyerabend ('67 i think), or a nobody?
This is a wonderful series. Well done, Dr. Kuhn! So honest, and a refreshing approach!
a big call here - the best episode yet !
Unfortunately, what is considered "philosophy" in the Universities is the study of certain specific famous philosophers. If science was taught in the same way, the entire curriculum would be focused on studying the biography of famous scientists, rather than on the understanding and advancing the actual science.
Knowing previous scientific ideas is important. Knowing the names and biographies of previous scientists is not. What the philosophy curriculums typically focus on is the exact opposite of what philosophy should be about.
@@EugeneKhutoryansky very nicely put. True what you said about study of philosophy in educational institutions. It doesn't have to be that way but it has been. Science is a process, a tool to understand and deal with whatever it is we are trying to find, explain, or solve. The product of such process is what lives, gets used, questioned, revised, or discarded altogether. The people who put that tool to use are not worshipped.
Pretty much yes
True, students are taught chronicling...not philosophy.
@fynes leigh science is a method and a fundamental step within philosophy. Knowledge is essential for our philosophy to be able to produce wise claims about the world.
I'm always excited to find such thoughtful discussions. It mirrors the conversations we've been having on my channel.
This TH-cam channel is incredible!
Very underrated
thank you
What an insightful narration with appropriate examples. Really enjoyed. Thank you so much for adding more value to my interest in sciences.
I absolutely loved Rebecca's argument for philosophy. Favorite interview of this episode. I am going to go search for lectures from her.
The most important use that was not mentioned is "what to use science for." More broadly, science can never answer the question "what should we do?" Science without philosophy is about as useless as a hammer absent a task, or a person to wield it. In a time where science is taken as seriously as it's ever been, and many feel a lack of purpose in their difficult lives, philosophy must be recognized as our way of redefining our ends and purposes. Science will help make all of that possible.
Science is a tool. An abstract and objective method of questioning reality under controlled and defined parameters. It's only concern is the observed behavior of certain phenomena that occur in nature, it is our best way of finding out how the universe works, as it is. I agree with the analogy of a hammer being useless without a person to wield it as it goes well with what science truly is, a tool. You can't use a hammer to move a car, or to wash the dishes or to even tie your shoes. It would be inefficient. I think that given the knowledge about the physical universe that science has managed to uncover, every human has the daunting and never ending task similar to that of Sisyphus, but for us it is to figure out what this means for ourselves.
Fascinating and informative as always! Maybe another function of the philosophy of science could be how we use scientific advances and achievements in an ethical way? Or is this the subject of a different field?
@fynes leigh By "we" I was referring to humanity in general, you might say it's a bit abstract. I suppose it can be rephrased as "...how scientific advances and achievements can be used in an ethical way"
I will give you a less abstract answer. Ethics of science is no doubt philosophical in nature, but of a more practical kind. As far as I am aware there are already several subfields dealing with this subject, most widely known is medical and bioethics.
Physics needs philosophy. That should not be doubted by good open-minded physicists.
Agree
Just as much as science needs metaphysics, hence the philosophical branch. Heck, even pseudoscience respectively when looked at with the right set of eyes. All knowledge is valuable.
Yes I agree but I think it is more important to practice seeing reality in an unbiased way because reality simply is what it is without our perception and this is what so many including philosophers do not understand.
This is indeed an excellent introduction to philosophy of science. It reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s programmatic question of philosophy of science in the age of relativity: how does one relate the crude data of sense to the space, time, and matter of mathematical physics? (Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy, 1915) Accordingly, Russell thought that "Philosophy...is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation." (A History of Western Philosophy, 1945) Hence "The problem we have to discuss is whether there is any reason for believing in what is called 'the uniformity of nature'. The belief in the uniformity of nature is the belief that everything that has happened or will happen is an instance of some general law to which there are no exceptions)" (Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy, 1959, p. 63) Russell, of course, gave his own lasting contribution to mathematical logic by advocating a research program in mathematical philosophy, which certainly influenced logical positivism and analytic philosophy of science www.nythamar.com/science.html
this is the most meshed up introduction of philosophy of science I have ever seen.
Russel also placed emphasis on modal logic and ontology, but not on words and ontologic committment to the extent that Plato or Quine did. Strange that I think this series is shallow and largely ill-conceived clickbait nonsense, designed to admit within its purview certain wrongheaded ideas as possibilities (like existence of supreme beings etc..) presumably to pander to a pre-conditionally religious or superstitious (US) audience (see other vids in this series). For Quine followers (a rational american) the ontologic mistakes are too numerous to ignore or forgive....
@@doce7606 Chronicling......this is history of philosophy of science...not Philosophy of Science.
To me, it seems obvious that assuming science to be external, objective and absolute allows one to conclude that science is external, objective and absolute.
beg the question much?
For anyone in any field to claim absolute certainty about anything too readily accepts information as fact ..
.to be uncertain is uncomfortable...to be certain is ridiculous
Socrates
Are you certain about your uncertainty, for if you are, you've violated your own premises?
@@1974jrod in essence, he created a black hole that sucked him in. LOL
@@hkicgh7277 lol
@fynes leigh i encourage my daughter to say "i havent done it yet" rather than "i cant do it". So because of evolution (if you choose to believe in that) i may one day stand on my own shoulders, just like a shoulder stand might be interpreted as standing on your shoulders so semantics plays into this also.
I just like for people to realize and speak to others as if they can admit that their words and verbal presentations are opinion, hypothesis or belief. And thanks for your response.
@@1974jrod that claim of yours sounded like the theistic claim "disbelief is a form of belief". That is a fallacy of ambiguity you used there.
Uncertainty is the lack of certainty on specific claims... full stop.
Uncertainty on its own excludes certainty by definition.
I'm surprised I didn't hear the "shut up and calculate" ethos in the discussion. There are many scientists who demarcate their objectives as (only) being able to predict the outcome of experiments. That leaves pretty wide intellectual areas including reality, meaning, and ethics available where careful thinking is valuable. And, of course, scientists are very valuable as philosophers.
A terrific production! This is the first video I’ve seen on this channel. Very professional and balanced. I’m looking forward to seeing more.
Historically, wasn't what we now called science previously called natural philosophy?
Yes
IN order for a claim to be wise, it needs to be based on knowledge. Science previously known as Physika (Aristotle's physics) and Natural philosophy is nothing more than a Philosophical category that was forced to split from the unmonitored academia of Philosophy.
As late as 1930 scientists were labeled philosophers and they published their papers in philosophical journals.
Until this day scientists are awarded with PhDs (Doctor of Philosophy).
Aristotle was the first to acknowledge science (physika) as the second most important step of any Philosophical inquiry.
In reality when we have the ability to gather data we do sciences, when not we just do philosophy.
There is philosophy practiced within scientific disciplines producing scientific theories , hypotheses and interpretations which we label it "science".There is also philosophy outside science which are very important i.e Philosophy of science but usually the principle of "free inquiry" allows tons of pseudo philosophy to sneak in academic publications along with really great philosophical work.
@fynes leigh
I find it odd that philosophy isnt taught in our schools but it isnt surprising that it isnt. Philosophy doesnt necessarily involve the physical and material while public education in the modern age puts an entire focused emphasis on the material. If every child was encouraged to dwell into philosophy theyd then would have the tools to succeed and problem solve rather than be told to know x, y, and z so that they can get a job and drudge through life getting paid to do something they hate instead of doing whats meaningful.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 you're coflating wisdom with knowledge when we get our wisdom from experience, not knowledge. Knowledge is useless and empty unless you can apply it practically. It may as well not exist.
I noticed a person will use the term "psuedo philosophy" when they want to dismiss something.
@@postplays No you don't understand the relation between knowledge and wisdom.
1. Gathering Experience is knowledge.
2. Gathering Systematic knowledge from specific methodologies is knowledge.
Knowledge is the basis of any wise claim.
i.e. a claim "you can use your window to exit your house if your main door is jammed" is a wise claim.
NOT KNOWING that your window is located at the top floor of a tall building.....that makes your "wise claim" stupid.
IN ORDER TO practice Philosophy you need to work on verified knowledge claims in order for your conclusions to be WISE.
If you don't understand this simple fact than you either dishonest or mentally challenge. mate...no offense.
This is a fact acknowledged by the father of the Philosophical method, Aristotle.
So don't make the same ignorant claim again mate.
Good philosophy allows thinkers from repeating mistaken ideas explored before. Prevents thinkers from previously explored dead ends. That makes history important.
"philosophers do have a special ability to help in areas where theres a need for clarification"
Oh, the irony of ending with the *_philosophical_* statement, 'science is king'.
science(Empirical Philosophy) is the king of all philosophical categories
@fynes leigh what.....?
@fynes leigh you are funny mate. I just pointed out that science is part of philosophy....and you came up with a spreadsheet on psyche and unlabeled apparatus....
We are in agreement on the relation of science...but you sound confused on what psychology is.
@fynes leigh btw....you meant " if I cannot be of assistance to witness imbeciles that can "NOT" understand plain English"
Isn’t it ironic how we learn from our mistakes? Science/philosophy are no different.
saying philosophy is not necessary is like saying logic is not necessary
Logic and philosophy are distinct, Philosophy is more conceptual that practical and Logic on the other hand is coherent with nature.
@@hkicgh7277 Logic is to philosophy what words is to a language. Philosophy is the application of logic on our knowledge in order to produce wise claims about the world.
Its in the etymology of the word
Not for Derrida and post moderns
hki cgh logic is one of the five major branches of philosophy.. metaphysic, logic, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics.
Thank you
Philosophy does all those things you mentioned at the end, but you forgot one: Philosophy teaches scientists to be aware of their assumptions and to question those assumptions, rather than not even being aware of them or accepting automatically they are valid assumptions. For example, you have an assumption you ought to question that "science is king." You ought to question that assumption. He was kind of wild in other respects, but Feyerabend would challenge you about that assumption.
This is very high quality material
Philosophy is the foundation of science
Alchemy was the foundation for chemistry😂
I love this. This is exactly how I feel about Philosophy. I love how I see myself in these Philosophical people.
Very well done
I think Lakatos largely has it right: as it pertains to science, philosophies singular contribution is the generation of research programs, which are developed (or destroyed) in scientific practise.
One of my pet projects in philosophy of science, and this might help give a good feel of the discipline, concerns whether the *prediction* of data by a theory T rather than the *accommodation* of data by T offers more justification our belief in the truth of T. There are quite strong pre-analytic intuitions that data prediction offers T an advantage over what might be thought to be the ad hoc accommodation by T (ie. constructing T to fit or accommodate the data). Tutoring those intuitions into an argument *for* prediction; an argument that would offer some rational support for our inductive practices constitutes a research programme in the philosophy of science.
One can also look at current science as though it is a slow moment in philosophy, we have gained a certain kind of economic prowess from war fueled science so we now feel this style of philosophy is usefull - when there was no such aggressive conflict we asked questions in freely, wildly freely different ways, not asking those questions doesn't mean we are finally "doing better"; we might just be extremely scared of loosing wars now.
Worth watching!!👍
I suggest a book to read : The Problems of philosophy by Bertrand Russell, the last chapter is The value of Philosophy.
Philosophy is consciousness of things around. Science is investigation of things around.
Both Complexity and simplicity are now entering dialogue and discussion about consciousness. Is there a greater need for simplicity to play a greater roll in these debates? Are there some human beings who do not have souls? Can a person decide that they do not wish to live after they die? J.B.
So, IS he related to Thomas Kuhn or is that just a crazy coincidence?
I was thinking the same.
"Though science is King..." love that he took the oportunity to bolster himself haha.
"Philosophers aren't going to help people make nice dinners" 9:42. Food preparation is best performed in a higher state of loving consciousness - Zen macrobiotics.
I like to think both science and (formal) philosophy as products of a Human Thought (intended caps). Philosophizing is one way of directing thoughts trough an analytical process, on which formal philosphers are trained and have been building schemes (theoretical structures) through history. Then, science is a way of verificating schemes via empirical evidence obtained by controlled methods.
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'.
4:50 ^
When you ask question of "why not?", You are doing philosophy by default
You can never "start" to study science without philosophy.
Primarily, science is created by set of general principles rather than with a method. The three general principles of science are: philosophical, foundational, and general. The philosophical principle is logical positivism; the foundational principle is abstraction; the general principal is mathematical formulation.
Logical Positivism is the philosophical principle that defines the role of science and isolates it from metaphysics and religion. Positivism is a fast track to scientism, the belief that science is the only path to understanding the true nature of reality. Positivism: (i) rejects the idea that reality has some purpose, (ii) rejects attempts to explain natural phenomena by an essence or a secret cause of things, (iii) rejects as meaningless any explanation not verifiable through the senses, (iv) advocates the study of constant relationships without delving into the underlying causes.
Wow that last guy really blew my mind
Philosophy of science etymologically defined is Philo= love, sophi= sothing/sophisticated language, science= to know. Therefore Philosophy of science = the love of proper and sophisticated language in order to know. Therefore Philosophy of science does not mean to love sophisticated language in order to remain ignorant or not know.
Let me share my understanding of the topic
Science can explain what things happen but can't explain what they are
Philosophy helps science in clarifying the concepts
Initially science began with philosophy as early name of science was natural philosophy and physics was a part of it.With the time as science develops the graph of philosophy began to collapse
Philosophy defines the boundary between science and pseudo (fictious and unreal) science.
Dennett is an interesting character. I wonder if his appearance is a conscious or unconscious result of his admiration for (worship of?) Darwin.
Haha nice
If I may paraphrase Alfred North Whitehead, scientists frequently appear to be trying to reject metaphysics. What they are really doing is attempting to prevent you from criticising their own metaphysics.
Modern science is a philosophy presented by galileo in its quantitative approach to understanding and analysis. For science to understand all truths then all truths must be quantitative, but how can that be when there exist qualitative or experiential phenomena and then too how do we account for that in reasoning and analysis moving forward
An unbiased comment: the two inform each other. However, I find it hard to accept much of the role philosophy presently tries to make for itself since science answers the biggie questions regarding objective reality. For example:
“We don’t need a scientifically based or a strong philosophical underpinning to validate science. All we need to know is that the method works: that it produces results that all scientists could in principle replicate (if they can’t the results are discarded), and it produces-apologies to Jane Austen-truths universally acknowledged. It also produces progress. It cures diseases, flies us to the moon, improves our crops. No other “way of knowing” does that-certainly not religion, Brown’s favorite hobbyhorse. And yes, the practice of science rests implicitly on the value that it’s good to find out what is true and real, but does Brown disagree with that? In the end, the method is validated by its results and needs no a priori justification. After all, the methods of science weren’t devised before science was practiced-we simply learned from experience that if we wanted to find truth, we had to go about it in a certain way.” whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/andrew-brown-there-are-lots-of-ways-besides-science-to-find-truth/
Love it!!!
I agree and appreciate all the arguments posed by the philosophers in this video.
HOWEVER, I'm under the impression that they failed miserably in providing CONCRETE examples of actual collaboration between Philosophers (not Philosophy) and Scientists (not Science).
Which works have been done? How these works have been producing benefits to all, including tangible and intangible values? And so on...
Also, my impression is that the Philosophers in these interviews acted defensively with the same kind of arrogance showed by the Scientists that don't understand (and don't want to) the position and value of Philosophy.
Being the ones who are proud of making the right questions, they didn't make even the simplest ones.
For example: why Scientists are progressively making those questions about Philosophy? What does this mean for both fields? Who is failing? Are the Philosophers lost and gradually distancing themselves from the basic questions and needs of the current state of the society, so that the Science is filling that gap and providing answers needed by the humanity right now? Are the Scientists dangerously distancing themselves from the basic ethical, moral, human questions and capitulating to the massively present political and power? Or just genuinely don't care about Philosophy due a lack on their professional formation?
None of these were made. They limited themselves to say "I'm his/her daddy but he/she has abandoned me. He/she's just an ingrate kid that has a lot to learn in life."
Philosophers should be scientists
And scientists should be philosophers
I imagine most scientists just get on with it, especially if they are engaged in standard science, which has been pretty much routinised in terms of issues, concepts, procedures and explanations. Where this not the case (the cutting edge of quantum mechanics and cosmology, as contributors have pointed out, but myriad other multi-disciplinary areas in and pretty much all of psychology social sciences) they will themselves engage with the clarificatory and logical issues fundamental to philosophy. They might talk to their philosophical colleagues, and, if they find it useful, continue the conversation. I liked Dennett’s idea of the philosopher as the expert in mistakes already made in these abstract areas. Of course, some of their less engaged colleagues will no doubt continue make occasional smart quips over a beer or two. It’s called academic bitchiness.
fynes leigh You’re quite right, I should have said “... that I know of...” For all I know other labs are buzzing with speculation about these hot abstract issues, slagging off philosophers (instead of their more immediate colleagues or rivals) and so on. Thanks for the correction.
This separation of philosophy from science and the craze to keep the two apart is mind boggling!
Put another way, philosophy is love of knowledge or is it wisdom, so I thought!
Another shocking thong is that if science has nothing to do with philosophy, what does it mean to hold a PhD in Chemistry, physics, biochemistry etc?
In my view, this efforts of separating the two has watered down science in the 18th, 19th and 20th century and must be shunned in the 21st century. These definitional silos don't quite have a place, going forward.
Recently I did a TH-cam video speaking for the need for religion, science and philosophy to work together seamlessly. Many solutions of problems will be found at the intersection of disciplinary Ven diagrams, I'm so truly persuaded!
Civilization is maintained by not not knowing absolutely everyone’s thoughts. Now that is gone
scientific method is a product of epistemology , its the result (not final result) of what the best way to have knowledge , and every scientist is philosopher in every reasonable evaluating or thinking about the relation or causation or strength of evidance that support there conclusion
All science is predicated upon epistemological philosophy (i.e. things and how can we know them). Science then being hyper-focused philosophy. Mathematics is merely applied logic which is philosophy. From mathematics arise physics. Physics being applied mathematics. Chemistry merely being applied physics. Biology merely being applied chemistry. The list goes on. I would say any scientist who doesn't understand the importance of philosophy doesn't understand what it means to be truly human. Science needs a check and that check is philosophy (i.e. ethics).
Trying to argue away philosophy by taking different lenses to reality, i feel like the philosophers win lol
Sience is about Hardware: How? Philosophy is about Software: Why?
Science is Philosophy on better data. Science is one of the six basic steps in any philosophical inquiry. You can not do science without philosophy and you can only do pseudo philosophy without science.
A philosopher is an individual who think about the nature (nature is a part of Nature = everything).
His conclusions is correct or uncorrect.
Science is King and Philosophy steadies it’s crown?
I was hoping for Philosophy is King and Science is a member of its court.
how is Science not a subset and entirely dependent on Philosophy?
for meaningful hypothesis, validity and interpretation?
When you ask "Does Science care?", you are singulising, externalising & personifying. Results are empirical, therefore Scientific, conclusions are Philosophical. That "Science", doesn't need "Philosophy", is a Philosophical argument.
Would the theory of everything have to include itself in it's equations and if so, is that even possible?
Philosophy, I would say are the stairs to the upper floors of scientific investigating labs. It's not just the word philosophy, its the feeling, it's perception, sometimes knowing for sure. Where does it come from? maybe our genes carry informations from generation to generation since our first ancestor was born.
Being able to recall some recorded memories of the past, would explain some mysteries, like dreams or sudden intuition. Without the philosophical support science would miss a very important factor of recognition.
To let go, is a difficult decission for anyone confronted with a new experience, whether its jumping from a tower, or riding on a high-speed train, but with a scientific logical mind, can easy figure out nothing wrong will happen in the train if I let go, or jumping from a tower tied on a bungee rope. It will help to combine both, for sure.
@@Exnexus As soon as we learn, too much, as some of us think, our "ego" gets in the way and ignore many possible useful philosophical signs and spiritual thoughts that could maybe be the key to closed doors.
Of course we have to analyze and differ from what is a brain disorder, and what is deeper knowledge to unknown terrains.
@@Exnexus I think we have to differ between natural processes and possible capable abilities.
But we never have to forget the individualism of our being, there it starts, and there it ends.
I mean we can do a lot together as team work, but not all.
We have an individual story of our own, who gathers them and what for, I don't know yet.
@@Exnexus Sorry Chris I have to do some things now, thanks for your time, but if you have some interesting thoughts to share dont hesitate to tell me about it, good day pal.
Philosophy is the ;adder with six steps. Science, as Aristotle suggested in his create classification work, is the second most important step of this ladder.
1. epistemology
2. Physika (empirical investigation/science)
3. Metaphysics
4. Aesthetics
5. Ethics
6. Politics.
Back to the top
@@nickolasgaspar9660 see, this is the problem people are facing. The influenced information hinders own logical thinking to many topics, most assume it is right what have been taught, but we see there were many corrections made in the past till our present time. I don't depend alone on learned lectures, it doesn't bring me further if I don't use my own conclusions to the subject.
Multiple universe theory is philosophy in my opinion
legend has it IB students had an epiphany here
Love how this whole video is a defense of philosophy in light of scientific inquiry. Mainly because some popular speakers on science simply dismiss philosophical practice. If I recall, Hawking and Tyson dismissed philosophy.
6:20 the twins reunited.
I wanted them to bring one of those “philosophy is dead” scientists so that he gets exposed for shallow thinking. The irony.
The philosophy usually practice outside scientific disciplines and on non naturalistic principles is dead for more than 2.000.
Philosophy is the main tool even in Science. All scientific theories and interpretations are philosophical frameworks on naturalistic principles.
I can answer that in one word destroying
The faster you run at the answer, the quicker it distances it'self from you with more questions.
We technically never really get "Closer To Truth".
Very true or at least you are getting closer to the truth!
fynes leigh I would agree but I would call it the mind.
Well truth is an evaluation term we use on claims that are in agreement with current facts. Since our observations change (due to technological advances ), facts change too. So we should expect our truth claims to change too.
So we constantly improve our truth claims (get closer to the truth, especially in science) but we can never say when a specific claim is the "Ultimate truth".
So the problem is how to identify ultimate and absolute truth, not real world truth claims.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Based on reality we can never really know if we indeed are getting any closer to the truth. Answers never tend to lead to the truth, just more questions. IMO
@@mindofmayhem. truth is an abstract concept. It doesn't exist.
What we can do is use this concept as an evaluation term based on metrics that we are able to verify.
So in real world, true is a claim that is in agreement with CURRENT facts. This is the best we can do.
Improving our claims to fit our new discoveries (new facts) is what we describe by the term (closer to the truth).
Abstract concepts like truth, freedom, honesty etc are processes that highlight specific idealistic goals .
We should be very careful with our language if our goal is to understand abstract ideas. Magical thinking can mesh things up
What philosophy reminds scientists is that we never totally understood where it (all thought) comes from. It all points to things inside of us or how we work. Not all scientists are skilled at understanding complex mechanisms hence their own chauvinism at not understanding blocks the light. The "scientists" most competent to comment and understand mind should be Engineers, not theorists.
Such a brilliant show. Brilliant man.
As an undergrad engineering student in SDSU it was required reading and I thought it was useless waste of time, but this perspective sure changes my mind.
We have seen in this video some very good reasons why science should value philosophy - quite aside from the fact that, in a sense, science relies on philosophy (in its presuppositions and methodology). As a philosopher, however, I am more interested in whether science is of value to philosophy. It seems to me that it has none - for one very good reason: the most fundamental philosophical problems we face are the same as those that faced Plato and Aristotle. Science simply provides more examples in which these problems come to light, it does not solve them. Indeed, it adds one more to the repertoire: What is it to do Science?
Science is philosophy on higher standards and far better data. Those who value science must understand that data without a theoretical interpretation(philosophy) are useless. BUt this video is not the best way to understand why we should value philosophy and we should not accept any philosophical just because its a product of a philosopher.
The reasons why scientists reject philosophy(outside of a scientific discipline) are important and justified.
Nickolas Gaspar You are right! We should never embrace a philosophical belief because it comes from a philosopher, we should do so on the grounds of good reason. However, science and philosophy are not on the same scale with one or the other holding a higher score according to data. They are about quite different questions and issues.
@@theophilus749 Can you give an example of a philosophical question that science can not contribute to the process of answering it?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Here are some:
1. Is God real?
2. Is mind physical?
3. What is beauty?
4. Are numbers real?
5. What is free will?
6. Are there universals?
7. What is goodness?
8. What is science?
9. Why is ether something (anything at all) rather than (literally) nothing?
10. What is knowledge?
I can anticipate some of your responses but I'll just let you make them if you feel so inclined.
Cheers, Theo.
@@theophilus749 1. Is God real?
-not a philosophical question!!!! If you accept that as philosophical then you must accept a similar question for Zeus, Mitra, Osiris,pixies, the spaghetti monster, leprechauns etc.
Its "a poisoning the well" /"begging the question" fallacious question. Making an ontological question on zero indications or objective evidence is pseudo philosophy.
2. Is mind physical?
-NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION!!! We don't even have evidence for the existence of other dimensions other than the physical, not to mention that the brain is currently a sufficient and necessary explanation for the phenomenon.....so again its a begging the question fallacy.
3. What is beauty? This is a philosophical question.
-Aesthetics a philosophical category! Science's input in this category helped us understand our biological predisposition and how it defines our perspective of beauty and how beautiful things "reward" our brains through the secretion of endorphins and explained so many things about this "philosophical" question.
A philosophical question, sure! Could philosophy alone provide any answers....of course not. High quality of scientific knowledge answered what is beauty.
Maybe "what is/ins't beautiful"(personal preferences) can be a far better question inside a philosophical framework.
4. Are numbers real?
Again not a philosophical question....a poisoning the well fallacy. Numbers are symbols we use to represent the information of quantity. Nothing mysterious or weird with numbers. Numbers do not exist like other physical things(spatial or temporal properties) but they are real mental concepts (symbols).
5. What is free will?
Again ....one more fallacy. First we need to prove that our will is free, free from what and then try to define what free will is.
Not a philosophical question.
6. Are there universals? This is a philosophical question.
Where? in our minds. Sure. We classify things according to universals.
Since empirical verification is needed....that is not a pure philosophical question. Science is needed to answer this.
7. What is goodness?This is a philosophical question
-Its a label we put on specific behavior so again empirical verification of the quality of different behaviors is needed. Not a pure philosophical question. Science is needed to answer this question.
8. What is science? Philosophy of science. this is a philosophical question, that includes science. Science needs to ask this question too in order to improve its methodologies.
9. " Why is ether something (anything at all) rather than (literally) nothing?"
-Not a philosophical question. Why questions assume teleology (intention or purpose) which they need to be demonstrated first. Science can answer the reason how existence is sustained in the cosmos( quantum relations)....but the "why" question is a fallacious one.
10. What is knowledge?
-This is a philosophical question.
So we can agree by using philosophy we can make really good questions, inside and outside science (like No 3,6,7,8,9,10) But I can not see how philosophy can answer those questions without any scientific input.
All our scientific theories are answers to our philosophical questions. I can not see how you can separate science from philosophy or how you can arrive to answers without actual empirical investigation by science.
of course we have the really bad pseudo philosophical questions in your examples...that they are unanswerable, not because they are hard, but because they are fallacious.
Read this! This is the only possible, truly unifying and conclusive ‘theory of everything’ in existence! The questions of what the universe is, where it came from, what it evolves towards, and how intimately it relates to human existence-are revealingly answered in terms of morphology, as they begin to arise from Plato’s forms and Sheldrake’s work on morphogenetics, but mostly by genetics itself.
He who holds the ruler mustn't be the same person who asked the question, and when they are sometimes the 'answers' can be rather questionable. It's also still pretty unclear as to which is more important the questions or the answers.
I love the fact that science can't tell you what anything IS, from your table, to a planet, to mind, leaving open the powerful logically consistent explanation offered by Idealism.
Minds that limit their knowledge to science even entirely discount the value of direct experience as any measure of truth, which is lolzy because they can't know anything at all, including what science offers, without using mind
You love Plato.
Goodnight and good luck.
What is philosophy of science, i bet every scientist would love to know that.
@Language and Programming Channel Scientists like their work first, they learn to love it latter.
Philosophy of science is a great tool to understand science. And by Philosophy of Science I mean the descriptive aspect of the study NOT THE normative (i.e.Kuhn)
Descriptive Philosophy of science has a nearly 600 years of epistemic success...plenty to analyze why science is so effective in what it does!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Why only 600 years, pyramids can be 8.000 years old and still standing tall. Because science, but they were erected by and for philosophy. I can hardly imagine more useless structured than that, all they're good for is attracting money from tourists. It must be that compound interest thing, where you always start another cycle with investment you started with and all interest accumulated, so each cycle you earn more than before. It's also about tolerance, perfect structures would collapse a long time ago. Caves and pyramids can withstand time, so maybe this is what we should use when space colonization will begin.
This is how philosophy got us so far, nature imitate art.
@@xspotbox4400 600 years because of the scientific revolution mate. The systematization of science's methodologies as we know them today.
@@nickolasgaspar9660 Are you sure about that, Egyptians didn't start from nothing, they were building all kinds of structures and learn from failed attempts. It's one thing to erect a single monumental structure and completely another when you build a sustainable mega city that will last thousands of years. Scientific method was established all around empires after philosophers and thinkers agreed on a model, since they couldn't find reasonable objections. World became explored and human society went global, science became leading global intellectual and spiritual movement that is driving civilization and universal human rights. 600 years ago nobody knew American continents exist except native Indians. They didn't even know if Earth is a sphere or is it an infinite flat plane maybe, somebody had to go and sail around it first and prove it's a ball.
Dennett is right about apple trees and human behavior?
But what drives the need to eat from apple trees and see apples as the "product" to drive the human behavior?
What we do as social science students is first to pose questions (philosophical) such as what is science. I get that social science cannot do without philosophy because we would be saying after all sociology is not even science. Philosophy is what makes sociology science. Thanks for this amazing video!
Science and its method, though, pretty good and excitings, it is limited by its own parameters: it can only osbserve and test material/physicial realities. Its scope is narrowed by those same definitions that allow it to be. And it is circular, since we must assume it is the right method to investigate our reality, and that everything tested by it, is must be real or correct. But what gives to the scientific method its validity?
Is there a better method besides science to best understand objective reality?
Stu Mas , subjective perceptions alone are not able to be analyzed by science. However, if such perceptions happen by individuals within a group then they possibly could be analyzed by science. Philosophy adds nothing to the actual processes of science.
I would argue that the assumptions underpinning the scientific method are synonymous with the assumptions underpinning common sense. Further, I would argue that these assumptions are more evident than the premises of any argument that can be brought against them. No amount of philosophizing will remove ones belief in the existence of the external world, for example.
"What gives the scientific method its validity?" Its results. SMH understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/
@@gdn5001 , I do argue that "common sense" and intuition are NOT synonymous with the scientific method. If we still depended on it, we would still be in the Dark Ages: www.alternet.org/2013/01/your-brain-flawed-12-scientific-reasons-human-beings-are-wildly-irrational/
That philosopher who didn’t get the joke lmao
Science is a tool. A powerful tool to understand and affect reality, but a tool nonetheless. The tool cannot tell you how to use the tool itself, what’s the better way to use the tool or how to improve the tool. The tool cannot tell you how to fix the tool itself or when you should use it or who is able to use it.
Science may tell you, descriptively, what people value the most, but science cannot tell you, what people should value, because science is not prescriptive, nor it should be. Science is a map, a big big map of the world, full of smaller and smaller maps. Science is the *art* of making this mega map. But the map cannot tell you where you should go, it only tells you what’s the better way to get there, if you are lucky.
NOTE: Science = Probability
Objective Truth = Certainty
Certainty INFINITELY Greater THAN Probability
#Objective Truth INFINITELY Greater Than Science
The importance of Philosophy is to teach scientists that science is, by definition, based on the assumption that every accepted knowledge is temporary and, therefore, based on the inexistence of scientific truth. If one looks for truth the place to go is religion - religion is the realm of things that are thruths by definition. Perhaps this conversion of science into the hegemonic faith is a symptom of scientists ignoring philosophy.
People are dying around the world because people in the RAND Co. decided that human beings are selfish by nature because that made Game Theory problems reach stable solutions ... even though on empirical tests none of RAND's secretaries behaved selfish.
"Man questions serious professionals about the premise of accusations levied by very dubious, unserious, possibly nonexistent random laymen"
Philosophy questions and science answers.. and it's perpetual...
There's boundery between science and philosophy for sure.
In my humble view, asking 'what IS (my emphasis) philosophy of science?' is already making an irrevocable ontologic mistake of the profoundest kind, and skewing the rational response of any inquirer/responder pair. Science and philosophy are sets of concepts, ideas, and ARE, therefore, nothing - in the generally accepted meaning of the verb 'to be'. WV Quine pointed out all of these elementary mistakes (manners of speaking) in his books; From a logical point of view, and Word and Object (both Harvard, 1950's).
you know that words have different usages....right?
@@nickolasgaspar9660 This clickbait philosophy channel attracts minds of various levels of sophistication. You write a (partial) sentence that is meaningless without specifying which words, in which languages, while the vogue rhetorical flourish is vulgar, right?. Please re-formulate to allow a considered response. Consider the word; everything.., It describes all things that exist. This, for example, does not have another (except locally agreed) meaning, and other similar examples spring to mind. What is your point?
@@doce7606 you stated that :"Science and philosophy are sets of concepts, ideas, and ARE, therefore, nothing "
Both words (science and philosophy) describe different aspects under the same concept.
We label Science and Philosophy:
1. Academic Establishments.
2. The end result (knowledgeable and wise frameworks about the world).
3. The method (The actual methods used by those establishments).
SO saying that science and philosophy is just sets of concepts therefore nothing...that is factually wrong.
They are both methods of investigation with different goals. Science seeks claims which are in agreement with current facts and Philosophy seeks knowledge in order to produce wise claims about the world. So Science is an essential tool of Philosophy and philosophy is an essential tool for our efforts to understand the world.
If those things are "nothing" to you then, why on earth you are in here talking about them!
@@nickolasgaspar9660 a) who are we? : one must learn not to put words into other peoples mouths (even, perhaps especially, third parties'); (b) where do these (1,2,3) assertions arise from?; the list is silly. 1, particularly, is nonsense. A 'scientific establishment' is (presumably) a building with people and equipment in it (or many such), those people use a method, called science ( a concept of method of thought), to conduct their activities. that is all. Science is NOT an object. People and building ARE objects. The rest is therefore non-sequitur (except see*), except for the last question. Why be concerned with elementary mistakes of linguistic logic at the initial stage, particularly with reference to ontology..? The reason is that these initial misconceptions are the greatest impediment to understanding anything. First, one must, as plato found, decide which things are objects, and which are not. Being a concept doesn't mean something is unimportant, just that it doesn't have spatio-temporal reference, like people or buildings. Then one can ask other philosophical questions (conceptual questions), like * (your numbers); (2) How can a scientific end result be known before beginning then verified..? 3. How can the method be validated..? this IS philosophy of science (ie these are conceptual questions, not questions of existence)......
@@doce7606 "who are we?"
-oh lol you are that kind of guy. We=THE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIES WHO ARE INTERESTED COLLECTIVELY IN THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM THROUGH THE SYSTEMATIZATION OF METHODS.
"one must learn not to put words into other peoples mouths (even, perhaps especially, third parties');"
-that would be great.
" (b) where do these (1,2,3) assertions arise from?;"
lol they are called "common usages of a word" mate. If you open a dictionary you will see that words have more than one usage.
i.e.Science is a word we(we the members of the species and of our society) use to :
1. LABEL the scientific establishment/community and all its monitored functions (faculties, publications, peer reviewing etc etc etc etc)
2.LABEL the end product (scientific knowledge, scientific study, scientific theory, scientific interpetation).
3. LABEL the METHOD ..(Scientific method, Scientific methodologies).
This is Philosophy of Science 101 mate.
Why wasting my time when you are obviously totally ignorant on the subject mate!
I think you are more interested in playing with language than accepting other common usages of words
ps.
"3. How can the method be validated..? "
If you can use a computer to send your ignorant comments about science...then the scientific method used to describe the Standard Model and QM....is validated..don't you think? lol
Take care.
I think that Dan Dennett has a lot to add to any discussion of this kind, but his delivery just rubs me the wrong way. I probably don't disagree with his assertions, but something about him makes me want to.
Philosophy makes Science make sense?
That depends on the philosophy …
Newton was honest about the difference between mathematical modeling and an understanding of mechanism.
Hence "Hypotheses non fingo".
Which does not mean that philosophy/metaphysics cannot explain the mechanism …
But, unfortunately, academic metaphysics and philosophy in the West mostly derives from the unfortunate misunderstandings of Aristotle - which underly the (generally unnoticed, but obvious) paradigm problem.
Take a hint from the physicists who made the biggest leaps, and extend your reading list Eastward. Without the necessary basic training in thinking and understanding, all that could do was shake their confidence in the paradigm they call "classical" and "real".
If one wants to understand the (obviously simple and singular) mechanism behind the studied phenomena …
In the West, one needs to rewind to Thales.
In the East, just ask any Advaita Master to explain the double-slit experiment.
And, if they can't, please let me know so I can take them off my "recommended teachers after I go" list ;)
In the meantime, be ever so careful.
"Extra dimensions", "Many worlds" etc. are the new woo which makes the Epicyclists' Crystal Spheres look positively sensible.
Until the paradigm problem is noticed it can't be fixed. Dont buy the woo.
Let physicists do the data-fitting, and leave understanding to those (far from the academic firewalls and echo chambers) who have been trained in thinking and understanding.
I played John Hawthorne at chess twice in the 1980s and also stayed a night at his family home.
Back then he claimed to be an indoctrinated Roman Catholic😋
Sanatan dharmas philosophy can penetrate the reality
There is lot of ex. S also
my consciousness as my teaching routine is a menutype note of6 forms saved in a bookmark on twitter
For Aristotle science and mathematics was Philosophy. Philosophy to the ancients meant the pursuit of truth through mathematics and science. However, this idea only caught on in the West after Isaac Newton. The reason science is limited is because there is a limit to human imagination a point beyond which the human brain cannot comprehend. Will AI be able to extend human imagination? AI is a poor substitute for human thought and although it will help humans solve current problems, it will not extend human imagination beyond human limits, after all AI is simply human control over nature.
Science is an essential step in true and meaningful philosophy. After all Science used to be known as Natural Philosophy and its theories are based on the philosophical position of Methodological Naturalism....It impossible to escape philosophy and its impossible to practice meaningful philosophy without science
Another evidence of the importance of Philosophy is the hosts assumption that science was never wrong and never caused needless pain and violence. I would recommend him this class from Stanford available on youtube: th-cam.com/video/NNnIGh9g6fA/w-d-xo.html
Basically, Philosophy looks at stuff from all possible points of view and part of their work is finding all points of view, btw. For instance, if a philosopher were doing this video we would, at the end, have a at least an idea of what Philosophy of Science is.
when scientist throw out philosophy(inquiry through reason) they will build upon a foundation of sand.