Scientists vs Philosophers
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 พ.ย. 2014
- Philosopher of physics David Z. Albert and philosopher and writer Jim Holt discuss the tension between scientists and philosophers.
An excerpt from "The Origins of the Universe: Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing?" featuring Steve Paulson, Neil Turok, Jim Holt, and David Albert.
The New York Academy of Sciences
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
www.nourfoundation.com/the-ori... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[TH] Esports World Cup : Grand Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sedbKhFYDMo/mqdefault.jpg)
philosophy: "where should i go?"
science: "how do i get there?"
you need both answers.
Nope the scientific method easily formulates and addresses both questions
The second bit is more important
sums it up basically
@@thomabow8949you can't ask the second question if you don't have the answer to the first one.
"Every word is a prejudice" - Neitzsche
It should never be physics vs philosophy.
For us to understand the world, they must be on the same side.
I do not respect them division between the disciplines.
People have a very poor immature idea of what philosophy is, a caricature of the subject.
The comments are killing me.
Great talk. Thanks for uploading :)
Before doing Science, you have to have many presuppositions.
But before doing Philosophy, you have to have one presupposition only. That is: "I need to know the truth."
Why is there even a tension in the first place?? You realize that philosophy and science are two of the most important "creations" by humanity we have ever managed to stop squabbling about to create. They have unfathomable parallels of a deeply profound nature. Between the unprecedented defining aspect of the special relativity theory, to the revelations of the human condition of Stoicism. They both have the integral importance, and without either we would be lost. Conversely with BOTH we have a completely new way of looking at life and the universe at different levels.
Philosophy is just the "WHY" of science, and science is the "HOW" of philosophy. It is human nature to define "WHAT".
Philosophy is Why, What and How on a different level. And human nature? Yes, that's still philosophy. Philosophy asks about everything. Sometimes the answer is given by science, sometimes by art, sometimes by religion, sometimes by philosophy itself. But philosophy still remains the mother of all sciences (scientiarum).
Scientists and social scientists can be pretty withering about each other.
I have often thought some of physics discoveries through thought experiment were rather philosophical, such as Carnot's perfect heat engine. Einstein hardly did any experiments. Concepts such as entropy seem very philosophical to me. It was discovered by very clever people thinking about it very hard rather than by experiment. This all warps my brain, but there are parallels between entropy and information transfer over communication channels.
BTW, the title is wrong. It should be "Physics and Philosophers" on cosmological questions.
Without philosophy we would not have science, civil society, morality, etc. philosophy is the groundwork of science, it asks the questions and science answers them
Silly rabbits to argue against the value of philosophy or of science over philosophy just is to do philosophy. So to argue against philosophy is self referentially incoherent. If the statement is true it makes itself false. Philosophy and science need each other. A philosopher who is not at least well read in the sciences and not conversant with the deliverances of the sciences is that much less of a philosopher by making a claim to contribute something about any traditional field in philosophy like logic, ethics, metaphysics or epistemology. These all require at least some understanding of the major concepts delivered by one of humanities best tools for understanding this phenomena we bump up against as conscious beings.. In addition, a physicist is that much less of a physicist who is not trained in logic/critical thinking, basic ontological reasoning such as the nature and existence of abstract objects like mathematical properties and its bearing on the sciences. Issues in philosophy of science such as; the ethics of research, theory confirmation and the epistemology of science. All of these are the primary domain of philosophy. So lets all have some humility and learn how each discipline might help the other out.
+Jones James Read what Nietzsche and Schopenhauer said about science.
+Jones James What? Epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics most certainly have *not* been "incorporated" into other disciplines. And how is sociology doing philosophy more effectively?
+Sumani Robertson
Not true. Philosophy and the disciplines it has given birth to are concerned with questions that differ from each other. As such it is impossible that the findings of physics or sociology are better than what philosophy has produced.
*****
A philosopher thinks about the question "What is reality?".
A physicist thinks about the question "What are the basic building blocks of matter?".
Do you really have hard time differentiating the two? The philosopher is more interested in the concept of reality whereas the scientist tries to gain information of something more concrete, empirical and external.
This is pretty much what makes philosophy and science different from each other. Philosophy is all about trying to improve our understanding of the concepts we use in our thinking, whereas science tries to explain the empirical world.
The tension between the two is probably because Philosophy is auguring but not really answering the question. Science is expected to answer the question. The truth you want to believe in is hard to prove, For example, you may want to believe in free will and reality, for obvious reasons. But, Scientifically, and logically, it is almost impossible to come up with any hard evidence in favor of free will and reality.
Without free will, we have no morals, pride, or accountability (Not much of a scientific reason to believe in it). But chemical reactions are deterministic. Our brains and choices are based on chemical reactions. The hamburger juices that cover over the tongue sending chemical reactions through neurons to the brain that releases endorphins to make you happy is what makes one choose to eat a hamburger for lunch vs a salad. Or someone else may get more pleasure chemicals from eating the salad. Feelings both emotional and physical is just chemical reactions. Some people get pleasure from feeling pain. Pain chemicals can activate pleasure chemicals or sometimes just mute a different pain chemical reaction.
Solipsism is just lonely and viewed as very egocentric, it states no one exist except the one (That is why I don't want to believe in it). But, reality vs dreams has no logical or scientifically explainable differences and we assume that dreams are not real.
thats why i love Philosophy because it answers the 'Why' not the 'How'
Unfortunately the why questions in most cases are no only unanswerable they're simply pointless questions. If I ask you questions such as -
Why are there only three lepton generations and three quark generations. Why isn’t there a fourth?
Why is does the theory of general relativity start with the assumption that space-time is a manifold?
The 3 well understood fundamental forces of the universe are derived from gauge theories that correspond to the symmetry groups U(1), SU(2) and SU(3). Why is there no fundamental force following from SU(4)?
These are all well framed questions and you don't need a philosopher to ask them. But where the hell does it get us? If any of these questions are to be answered, those answers will come from physicists, NOT philosophers.
why is the most stupid question of all how is the better question and philosophy doesnt touch that
_"These are all well framed questions and you don't need a philosopher to ask them. But where the hell does it get us? If any of these questions are to be answered, those answers will come from physicists, NOT philosophers."_
It's like you didn't even bother watching the video.
1) Nobody cares that the answer to the question "doesn't get us anywhere". It was an interesting question and it was answered. Congratulations: you've satisfied the only criterion for philosophy.
2) It's not obvious at all that only physicists would answer those questions. The idea of space-time as a manifold? It's almost directly from Immanuel Kant; about 130 years earlier.
3) You don't need to be a philosopher to ask any question just like you don't need to be a physicist to solve any physics problem; just be ready to get a wrong answer.
Yes, but they don't anwser anything from at least 100 years... So meanwhile, go for the how.
You have intentionally chose your inferences, non-sense comparison with why questions, why we are here? just answer this.
Platos "The Republic" was philosophy.
Guess what rules our whole world now?
Philosophy of science is important in the development of science. Most prominent scientists became philosopher of science and lead to its development. Science would not develop much without philosophy if science
Science can answer the functions of reality. But you truly can’t understand the where it came from.
so true
neither can philosophy
My intuition is that parts of modern physics (eg QM) have a Ptolemaic quality.
My amusement is that people once thought that philosophy would have the right tools to explain reality, and then their best answer was physics.
Physics > philosophy
Can anyone help, at 3:44 i couldnt make out what he said? to me it sounds like he said the makhian analysis of time, but that doesnt bring up anything with google.
those 3-physicists mentioned (Hawkings, Tyson and Krause) were all atheists or agnostics and were often debating against Christian apologists which are mostly Christian philosophers
Can someone explain the two weekends joke?
Pythagerous did something for music
Philosophy and science are best interlinked.
Philosophy takes up the position of devil's advocate to make science question itself, thereby creating better accuracy, solutions and engaging in paths of scientific research it would not have yet taken.
Just my opinion
I've been here? Can't remeber
This truly is a silly squabble, but for those in the physics community who claim philosophy is worthless as it doesn't measure anything, they're missing the point. Philosophy is the ability to think logically and abstractly about reality, it's an inherent thing built into us by nature her self. It's the only way we can make true sense of the world beyond measurement. On the other end we have philosophers who are claiming physicists are incompetent as it's not truly making sense of the world, merely reducing it to figures and numbers( quantifying it) without a care for the bigger picture. Both are wrong and right at the same time. I am more in the physics camp, but I do love philosophy and i suspect many of the greatest physicists did as well. I believe when we get to the highest level of physics it will become more about imagination,Than mathematics. Mind you we obviously haven't reached that level yet, but one day we will. So at that level we will be de-evoled back to the days of the ancient thinkers of old.
Anyway, At least one thing physics and philosophers can come together on is how useless Mathematicians are . :P
What I could never understand is that if philosophy is simply the ability to think logically, do we really need it as a separate discipline? Scientists are all good thinkers and can think about the world just as any philosopher. Even logic is a branch of math now, what is left for philosophy?
Why do philosophers and physicists see Mathematicians as useless?
"What if you ask physicists what they have done for music lately" A physicist would answer that quite a lot.
Electric guitars, music softwares, modern musical instruments, etc and many more.
I took a class on musical acoustics physics. So there is a field for sound and how it relates in physics.
@@KittyBoyPurrthose are achievements of engineers, not scientists per say. ask any scientist if they consider engineers scientists :) by the same stretch you could also argue that through aesthetics pholisophy contributed just as much to music as science did.that’s not what that comment was supposed to mean.
I remeber attending a philosophy class as a physics major, and i legit said "what drugs are you on"
Science is dependent on philosophy. And it always aims at truth/ reality if it is relevant (true science). Even if it is going to focus on predictions we can say that they are only interesting if the predictions are close to the truth about what is going to happen in the real world (they somehow mach what we call reality). Measurement can include many things like sense perception and are therefore to broad to be the subject of science...even if measurement is central. One would have to explain what is meant by measurement.
Which one should I choose for my academic career? :/
Science if u want bucks , both if u want to understand both better
I've never met anyone who considered science vs. philosophy any real kind of debate. Philosophy was taught as an empirical science years ago..
because philosophy=physics years ago.
But cant they not tie into each other example: Would you stop the Sun from exploding saving all of our lives but then by doing that you will cancel out the birth of new things due to star dust?
Lord Weeble. With all due respect sir, I would recommend an undergraduate level critical thinking course and a couple philosophy courses with a tenure track Prof. in a primarily analytic philosophy department. If we take your claim to be true then it makes itself false because your making a philosophical claim and your very claim undermines the discipline you use to make it. You should probably do some cursory research about these matters you are making a knowledge claim about. No need for philosophy? Sociologist do the same thing philosophers do but better lol? Have you ever read a contemporary academic philosophy journal such as Mind, Analysis, British Journal of Philosophy of Science, Faith and Philosophy or Philosophical Quarterly? No Sociologist do something very different than philosophy proper (and the converse). There is Philosophy of Sociology which helps set the conceptual edges of Sociology e.g. the conceptual framework Sociologists work within (See Paul Roth's work, far more brilliant than almost any practicing Sociologist). Look, philosophy is a meta- discipline that will always be around. It sets the conceptual edges of humanities intellectual existence and it always ruffles feathers and is attacked by pseudo-intellectuals because they (like their religious fundamentalist counterparts rail against more sophisticated religious thinkers) don't like their neat and tidy world views/conceptual frameworks overthrown when the truly revolutionary thinkers ask questions that begin the process of blowing up their pet paradigms. And make no mistake, often revolutionary Science at its best, is Philosophy and not science proper. Science proper only expands our knowledge from within an already given paradigm, it does little or nothing to set the paradigms themselves. Many of the most significant inferences drawn by Eisenstein used thought experiments which are the instruments of the philosopher and we're as much of philosophical import as they were science proper (would that many of today's scientist, as talented as they are at science proper had a rudiment of the philosophical sophistication scientist like Eisenstein and his predecessors had . That is the sole relm of the true geniuses among us e.g. the philosophers. This is all just basic public knowledge for anyone who looks at the historical record.
yes, i agree that every scientist is a philosopher (though he refuse), but every philosopher is not a scientist ( i mean scientist here as the public believes, the experimental ones, because when in rome, do as romans do). philosophy is a love, an addiction to ones interested field. so, human imagination begins where human understandings end! # hocus pocus and a little mumbo jumbo!
"Génesis 1/2, in my opinion , in a possible interpretation of these chapters, it isin't explicit a description, or limit of the extension of the "man" created, and how it was created. Leaving hyphoteticaly the existance of human spiecies possible, as its natural evolution process possible.Luis Maduro"Its a teology text i have written a few months. In my opinion reduces to futility the debate due to a reinterpretation of the sacred texts, and allows the possibilty of a intelligent design thru evolutionary process .What do you think?
There are no solid answers in pure philosophy. What philosophy does do is teach us to ask better questions. Then we can take the skills we learn in philosophy to other fields where there are solid answers and get better answers.
one of the things that would likely separate einstein from sam harris is the self-aggrandizing laughter
I'm sorry as a curious person of philosophy and history buff. Philosophy as played a key role in our modern world. Without philosophy there would be no ethics, logic and epistemology. People would still be living in a world of mythological superstition, no sense of rationality and complete ingnorance. So to say that philosophy is dead, only an arrogant fool would make such a statement
Philosophers adds fuel, Physicist burnt fuel. there's no conflict, except how this fuel is being trade.
"What if you were to ask physicists what they've done for music lately?"
Invented the synthesiser, the electric guitar, the sequencer, audio recording, radio broadcast, and digital signal processing, allowing previously unimaginable musical expression. Physicists also discovered everything that is known about sound, vibration, and acoustics, leading to breakthroughs in instrument design and concert hall design and the list goes on.
Why? What has philosophy done for music lately? :P
Many artists have been and are being inspired by many philosophers' ideas about how they should live their lives in order to find fulfillment. Physics gives you the beautiful data and yes at its practicality it makes our lives better in many ways and one of the examples is what you wrote ( synth, electric guitar and so on ). That is good. Physics is great because it is objective knowdledge. But philosophy can build your mindset in the widest way.
thats not the point the video is making, i think he is refering to that philosophy has contributed to itself, and when its contributing to science, is from philosophys perspective, just like the example he give when mentioning where Einstein analize the concept of time; from a previous discussion regarding the nature of time from a philosophys context. (pardon my english, i dont speak it)
You are analyzing philosophy from a phisicist lense, instead of just as a human who experience reality and has knowledge of physics.
SpeakerCone those are instruments not music. In the wrong hands, they produce noise. Now you wouldn't say physicists have contributed to noise pollution would you?
It is interesting how the Philosopher attacks the Scientist for demonstrating intellectual immaturity yet poses the question, "Which department should I go to to understand what the world is like". He goes on to criticise the nature of the questions being asked by modern science whilst himself framing questions which are presumptious, leading and unhelpful.
Einstein is regarded as a philosopher considering his theory of relativity was completely counter-intuitive to the modern newtonian science of his time. Not even the top scientists of his time believed it at first. The difference is it's not just a perspective like most philosophical idea, Einstein's ideas were practical and general.
You should read more about relativity and the evolution of theory in physics. Because all you say is bullshit. In science, the rule is "I don't accept your theory without solid proof". And this is exactly why Einstein theory wasn't accepted at the beginning (i talk about general relativity, restrain relativity is an exception). And without math, he couldn't finish his general relativity.
Sumani, if you suggested these pseudointellectual comments any academic conference with real academicians you would be laughed out of the room. Sociologist (or practitioners in other scientific disciplines) doing what philosophers do but better? I hope this is not a serious suggestion on your part and you are just trolling. Those kinds of positivist suggestions have run their course in the late 80's. The top physics departments are beginning to add philosophy/philosophy of science as a requirement requirement for undergrad and grad students. Take a look at Oxfords Physics department. The reasons are obvious to any serious thinker.
I apologize for the grammatical errors, contextual restraints.
Philosophy And science were equal at one point however, philosophy rejected mathmatics while science embraced it ultimately giving science its credibility today.
Philosophy doesn't keep up with physics. It's true, for a simple reason: IT'S HARDER THAN EVER. Metaphysics before quantum physics was easy, compared to what kind of metaphysics we need today to sustain the quantum nature of reality. Science is relatively easy: maths does all the job (of course it's not simple as this, but you know what I mean...). With philosophy is different. We need new concepts. Pre-quantum world has got its metaphysics in the theory of substance (from Aristotle to Kant, in a certain measure). It is not enough. But philosophy isn't dead exactly because it is having a hard time with quantum physics etc. LET THE PHILOSOPHERS WORK GODDAMIT.
Of course, here I'm referring only to one part of philosophy: metaphysics. All the other parts (from epistemology to existence philosophy) are alive and well!
i dont get the last joke
you need 169 IQ to understand it
Lyotac low iq?
Karl Thomson Still dont get it. why two weekends?
Atheistic modern scientist definition of 'nothing' is 'almost everything that is not 'nothing'
Kid: What is 'nothing'?
Krauss: It will take me months to tell you what 'nothing' is
I'm dying. Steven Hawking still failed to prove the axiom existed. Philosophers are still laughing knowing he wasn't gonna prove it to begin with. If science was that great, they would've solved axioms by now. Still waiting.
vs is bs
Hugh Mungus, is that you?
Those scientists who criticise philosophy are those who do not appreciate what philosophy is, and the role it plays.
A philosopher who doesn't understand science is a poor philosopher. A scientist who doesn't understand philosophy is not necessarily a poor scientist.
Not really, they are criticizing the fall of academic philosophy....not the intellectual tool.
tbh, just get on with the science way, as it has truly given us a real picture of how the universe works, life is short, making arguments would just be time wasting, and an opportunity costs for achieving actual results in science
Imagine a dog, it can sniff n find things. Now ders a master who tell it wat to luk for, it finds it n something is done now. Now master gives d nxt task dog does dat. If ders no master dog is still a very gud dog. It'll keep sniffing around finding random things doing random things.
Widout philosophy science loses its purpose.
Without science philosophy loses... Well, itself?
Why would it be to intellectually immature to want to learn something real about the world?
The main difference between science and philosophy is that science uses evidence to back up its claims whereas philosophy has no need for evidence - it's not a requirement. Physicists (and other scientists) go through extreme efforts to continually test theories and try to prove them wrong. In physics especially we even quantify how uncertain our measurements are in an attempt to test theories and models and to provide evidence for claims made by theoretical physicists. I wouldn't say philosophy is completely pointless, it was foundation of free thought and the seed from which science has grown - however, we are at the point now where I'm not convinced we need students to spend 7 or 8 years of their lives obtaining degrees and PhDs in philosophy, since science has proved far more effective in understanding the natural world than philosophy ever has.
Dywane with all due respect please stop, we're starting to genuinely feel bad for you. You really are exposing your anti-intellectualism and complete inability to comprehend the most basic arguments. I'm really not offering this trying to hurt you or as an ad hominem but you are trying to contribute to a discussion you have shown, based on your comments that you don't understand what science or philosophy is and does nor what the substantial issues are in the current debate.
The ultimate irony is seeing a philosopher bash theoretical physicists. Experimentalists and theoreticians don’t get along, but each are necessary to each other. Theoretical physics (unlike philosophy) has taken massive bounds in unraveling the nature of our universe. “Mathematical noodling” is exactly how we got Relativity, quantum mechanics, and basically all physics past 1900, which is the most accurate field in all of science. So I want these philosophers on this panel to step back and ask themselves 3 questions:
1. What do we mean that physics is failing at explaining what the world is like? Physics has shown that at the quantum level, the world is not simple and easily defined, so why are philosophers demanding that physicists make it so? To do so would be in direct violation of all the major discoveries in 20th century physics
2. What makes us think that theoretical physics is a joke? It’s easy to hurl casual jabs, but in reality, theoretical physics is one of the most explosive and revealing fields in all science.
3. What has contemporary philosophy taught us? Philosophers of the past built the foundation upon which all academia is built. But what new information has philosophy brought us in the last 100 years? Or even 200?
"What physicists can do for music" - hahaha good one. Well, for one, facilitate the development of a whole range of electronic musical instruments that wouldn't be possible just by carving wood. Hmmm. At this point I wonder if I should still take this guy seriously. LOL
Umm, that's not even remotely what a physicist does.
that's engineers job, not physicist man
"facilitate the development". They devise mathematical systems upon which they, or engineers, use to design technology and apparatuses that provide our lovely emotional musicians with the ability to make dramatic music. That's quite literally exactly what a physicist does. I suppose the philosopher who first "wondered" about how to make musical instruments can be credited for it all.
@@sircrabsalot9507 and thats not the point the video is making, i think he is refering to that philosophy has contributed to itself, and when its contributing to science, is from philosophys perspective, just like the example he give when mentioning where Einstein analize the concept of time from a previous discussion regarding the nature of time from a philosophys context. (pardon my english, i dont speak it)
Where would science be without people like Karl Popper?
At the same point as it is now. I study philosophy, but scientist do good without Popper ahahahahah
He defined physics wrong , actually
Philosophy is about babbling while sitting at your room, physics is about using tools, observation, calculation, simulation,... who know the world and even things better?
Every scientist is a philosopher. No philosopher is scientist.
I have never been so surprised reading YT comments before. I was expecting a complete massacre, instead not a single stupid comment.
I agree with criticisms of contemporary philosophy!
I was puzzled and baffled by remarks of Dawkins... Until I realized he is probably speaking of contemporary trends in philosophy.
Contemporary philosophy can be roughly divided into two categories: trying to deconstruct language and trying to systematize scientific knowledge. The former is postmodern nonsense and of no utility, the later is redundant because many scientists are making interdisciplinary attempts at unifying disciplines as it is.
I think I need to be charitable and assume the physicists are critical of contemporary trends, not the giants on whose backs they stand.
There is a great talk by Richard Carrier on the topic with the title "is philosophy stupid?". I think you will appreciate it.
This is very well said. I see no problem with the philosophy of the centuries that came before the scientific revolution, but modern philosophy seems to be pedantic and useless, unlike its grand precursors (few scientists would deny the importance of Locke, Popper, Plato, and Newton)
where philosophy speculates , science gives the answer. this makes science much more superior that philosophy in the name of finding answers
And there you go, you completely miss the point of Philosophy....which is to question the foundations of human reason, law, social and governmental structure and order.
What is truth? What is time? Is there such a thing as free will? Why is my reality not the same as your reality? These questions are just as important as any scientific question, questions that science cannot answer, you need BOTH to understand the whole picture.
Haha philosophy has to be able to be applied to life not theorized in notebooks and same goes for science
Science has bashed religion and spirituality, next is philosophy, next in line will be the Arts, after that, all human emotion.
+Daniel Woodward Huh? What are you saying? Science made easy the flourishing of arts. For example cinema, photography and the computer in which you are writing. You have a very biased conception of science.
+Dywane Patterson any examples of what you are saying or you are just talking about philosophy just for the sake of a chat, without even knowing what philosophy is? What are the big questions philosophy asks that are small questions in other disciplines? Enlighten me, please.
Hah! What has physics done for music.. That's laughable.. If he has to ask that question, he doesn't know much about physics.
philosophy is the reason physics exist. Everything starts with a question or fascination with something. Physics is a answer to something. A solution
Why are so many scientists bashing philosophers?
- Philosophy has not kept up with developments: in particular, the universe is saying pretty consistently "I am simple".
- But it is much, much, more than this. It's that:
...... 1 - While undergraduate, graduate, and phd physics programs improves the general understanding of the body politic, undergraduate, and graduate, and a very substantial part of the phd philosophy programs cause HARM to the general understanding of the body politic, second only to the pseudoscience of psychology, and third only to the pseudoscience of social science. So the issue is the HARM done by teaching philosophy as the literature of justificationary utopias, rather than the incremental knowledge we obtain in testifying (ensuring we are stating truth). As far as I can tell, philosophers have done far more harm than good in the past two hundred years. And before the past two hundred years, the list of philosophers that did good (Smith, Locke, Hume, Jefferson) is quite small, while the list of scientists and mathematicians who have done good (too many to list) quite large. And the list of philosophers who have done terrible harm (Rousseau and the entire french school, Kant and the entire german school, The entire cosmopolitan school: Boaz, Marx/Keynes, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rand/Rothbard, Adorno in particular) is nearly endless.
Why are philosophers of my generation bashing philosophers as in need of the same Operationalist revolution as has been forced on Physics and Psychology?
1 - Does not incorporate costs.
2 - Does not preserve
2 - Does not incorporate actionability.
3 - Meaning (verbalism) not truth (elimination of error)
4 - The unknowable communal Pareto 'Good', rather than the knowable interpersonal Nash Optimum.
5 - False understanding of truth as platonic rather than as a sequence of sufficient for given purposes: True Enough For:
... - Understanding/Meaning, (Learning)
... - Communication of Meaning ( communication, teaching)
... - Opportunity Discovery, ( what most of us desire from learning )
... - Actionability, (domain of science, how is this possible)
... - Contract/Cooperation, (economics and ethics)
... - Dispute resolution(decidability) (conflict and law)
Philosophy is like a game demo
Physics is the full version
xD well logic'd my fellow rational thinker
uhh...no. physics is the game engine. philosophy is the score system.
Your comment that you made comparing Philosophy and Physics to the same linking concept of a video game implies that you think Philosophy and Science are the same subject and are attempting to answer the same questions, they aren't.
You seem to think that Philosophers are just failed scientists who are huddled away in their rooms secretly wishing that they could discover the next great development in human civilization, they don't.
Your comment comes from a lack of understanding of Philosophy even is...
By the way "Niceman", Philosophers invented the concept of Logic..if you knew anything about Philosophy you would have known that.
The problem with science is that it pre-supposes that it has all the answers to the world's problems, that it is the ultimate or only recourse toward useful enterprises, when it is in fact philosophy that will save this planet from its biggest threat: Humans and themselves.
Would have loved to see a female discussion lol
I'LL BET (MONEY) I CAN ARTICULATE the falsehoods (errors in decidability) of almost every philosopher practicing today. Without even expending much effort. The discipline has been merged with religion in both the university and library systems. And for good reason. It's actually taught and practiced as fantasy literature of the mind rather than fantasy literature of the circumstance.