When Does Science Become Philosophy?
surferdude
Posts: 2,057
When does science become philosophy?
Much of what goes on in science now is only tested theoretically. It can't be backed by real test data. At this point has it become more a philosophy than a science?
Fields where this is common;
Theoretical Physics,
The Determinism/Free Will Debate,
Environmental Sciences including Climate Change.
Much of what goes on in science now is only tested theoretically. It can't be backed by real test data. At this point has it become more a philosophy than a science?
Fields where this is common;
Theoretical Physics,
The Determinism/Free Will Debate,
Environmental Sciences including Climate Change.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
well, experimentation can take the form of both lab research AND empirical observations, so I'd argue that alot of the global warming stuff does in fact count as science. But there's huge controversy over whether or not stuff like string theory can currently be counted as science, since by it's very nature, the study of 11th dimension space isn't possible.
And I'd argue that determinism/free will was never a science to begin with.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
Theoretical physics have a basis in observed astronomy, although they extrapolate alot from little materials. Free Will/Determinism is infact a philosophical debate. But environmental sciences are science. Not experimental, but very much empirical and based on observation. What little disagreement there are among climate-researchers is not about the data and the trends, but how it is interpreted.
So 1 is science, but on flimsy material, 2 is philosophy, and 3 is definitely science. Shouldn't be lumped together like that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I think that, in essence, all science is philosophy.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
A philosophical concept is a logical conclusion based on human observations of things and events. However, folks tend to interpret these 'event and things' differently.
As far as the topics you listed, I tend to agree with OutOfBreath. Environmental science is very much a science, although much more complicated than most think. Most physics is explained through very complex mathematics. The Hard determinism/free will thing is definitely a philosophy thing.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Science concerns it's self with testable theories. Using observable data.
How about climate change science? There's not even an accurate climate change model to work with at a theoretical level, so is it a science or philosophy?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Both theories begin with observable data. Climate change theories use ice cores amongst other things. Theoretical physics ultimately stems from Hamiltonian and Newtonian physics which are pretty well concrete.
Everything in science must be demonstrated mathematically as well. In philosophy you have thought experiments alone.
What is it like to be a bat?
I don't know what it's like to be a bat.
Then, can you know what it's like to be another human.
No, I suppose I cannot.
Do you believe in the philosopher's zombie?
What's a philosopher's zombie?
A human being who behaves like a normal human being but is not conscious.
Hmm, well, in order for it to behave like a normal human, say, for example, to cringe at pain, the being would need to feel pain, and thus must be conscious. So no I don't believe in the philosopher's zombie.
What about the prisoner's dillema?
In the short term, it would appear that the detractors are better off, but in the long-term the cooperators will excel in numbers while the detractors fend for themselves. It appears as if, most of the human species consists of cooperators, since we've constructed societies that behave as such, but many detractors can still be found.
None of the above philosophy uses observed data, it all uses ideas about what might be and very little of what actually is, and in many cases there is no citations of actual scientific papers in philosophy. But, at the same time, if something is proven in science, philosophers tend to shift their perspectives. This is not true for the Abrahamic faiths, but it is largely true for Buddhism and any secular philosophy.
Given that every prediction of observable data has been wrong* and that there is no accurate climate model, can we say climate change is a science.
*The ice “is going to remember that next year,” said Serreze. “Everything seems to be ahead of schedule and the models are all too slow. We’re on the fast track.” - Taken from an articel published today on Canada.com on the state of the NorthWest Passage - Yet another admission that there is no accurate climate change model, without the model there is not true testing. Without true testing is it a science?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It's still science because it has observable data. Whether or not there is a workable hypothesis is something different.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It wouldn't if it's only purpose was to collect data. If it's using a known inaccurate model to prove a hypothesis, then I'd say it's probably unethical.
Sort of like how they postulated dark matter to account for inaccuracies in big bang theory. Eventually they were able to observe dark matter, but now they've discovered a void a billion light years across that is challenging the theory of cosmic background radiation, which in turn threatens big bang theory. My hunch is, big bang theory is probably false, but being that it's science, it will eventually be proven false if it is, as the data comes in.
If you want to reduce science to the same level as "aliens exist" or "ghosts exist" then by all means, do it, but it won't stand up in court.
Depends on what branch of theoretical physics you're talking about. If you haven't, read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe. Or, better yet, download the Nova miniseries based on it.
As for climate change, we've got empirical data showing that the earth's temperature is rising. And we can observe that the glaciers are, in fact, melting. You don't really need models for that.
—Dorothy Parker
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6902/conspiracytheoriesxt6qt8.jpg
http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=the+elegant+universe
Just my 2 cents.
I like what that physicist says in that elegant universe
"If it doesn't produce a testable hypothesis, then nobody should believe it." in regards to string theory.
It's very tempting to believe in things. But as they say "string theory is not science" because it's not testable. I choose to believe in tested theories.
I, myself, don't believe God's been tested enough (although George W. Bush is certainly trying his best to test Him, heh heh). And some scientific theories haven't been tested enough either, as you say. That's why I believe in life as I know it, in the here and now, and get along by not pinning my hopes on anything else, either way.
But -- *shrug* -- that's me.
I feel the same way about Quantum Mechanics.
It just seems like they found a mathematical model that works, but doesn't necessarily describe reality exactly.
Some things, like, If you get hit by a truck, it's gonna mess you up, work without QM theories. Everyone knows that will happen, regardless of quantum events. For the most part we don't need that stuff to live our lives. But it all has it's place, and I prefer QM to nothing..
your right.
I like what that physicist says in that elegant universe
"If it doesn't produce a testable hypothesis, then nobody should believe it."
Show me a testable global climate change hypothesis that has been successfully tested in an accurate climate model and shows man's impact on the changing climate. That's all I want to see. As there is no accurate climate model there's been no real testing in my books. Without testing it's not science.
Man's impact on climate change is more a philosophy than science. It is just as scary to have social and economic policy being driven by this philosophy as it is to have policy driven by religious ideaology.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
And not E.E. Cummings.
No offense, surferdude, but it was a big thing to cummings to remain in non-caps. A very big thing.
Peace,
Bu
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
That a radical assertion for something that is not always right (like life science).
See link on the post above
This is a little bit of bs. What is capitalism if not a philosophy that just drives our social and economic policies? The weak thought that the market will regulate itself and make everything fine and dandy for everyone. This wonderful idea, spawned 200 years ago, now regulates and dictates our lives, though it definitely never has been tested and/or observed on global scales.
A few centuries ago science = philosophy. Today science is just a word to design a method used to observe the world with very strict rules. If your observations and/or theories obey these rules then it is science. If you wish your theory would obey these rules but have no way to do it then it's philosophy till a way is found, and if it doesn't follow the rules for convienence purpose then it's neither science nor philosophy.
Evolution (on a large scale) has not been demonstrated mathematically or in a very limited fashion, it is very much a scientific theory though. And major economical decisions are taken everyday using this theory.
Philosophy concerns itself with testing theories against the measurement of logic, reason.
Science concerns itself with producing theories about the world and then defending the methods by which the theory itself was created.
'...scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Scientific hypotheses are developed and tested through empirical methods consisting of observations and experiments. Once reproduced widely enough, the information resulting from our observations and experiments counts as the evidence upon which the scientific community develops theories that purport to explain facts about the world.
Observations involve perception, and so are themselves cognitive acts. That is, observations are themselves embedded in our understanding of the way in which the world works; as this understanding changes, the observations themselves may apparently change. More accurately, our interpretation of observations may change.'
Depends what methods are being used to 'test' any theory. Ultimately, human cognition gets in the way. Philosophers attempt to understand those aspects of the world that science cannot reach. A bit like Heineken lager. Although personally, I'd rather drink Kronenbourg.