When Does Science Become Philosophy?

The question is really when philosophy becomes science. Also science is dependant on theoretical models and assumptions that can later be ascertained in other ways.

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

surferdude wrote:

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.

I think that, in essence, all science is philosophy.

i've always thought of the two, science and philosophy, to be sister disciplines. What i mean is that for either of the two to be truly effective and meaningful, each relies on the other.

Philosophy concerns it's self with untestable theories. Using thought experiments and syllogisms.

Science concerns it's self with testable theories. Using observable data.

surferdude wrote:

So theoretical physics is philosophy.

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?

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.

surferdude wrote:

Newtonian physics is solid because it's been tested.

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?

It's still science because it has observable data. Whether or not there is a workable hypothesis is something different.

surferdude wrote:

So do you think it would be unethical to publish science that was tested against a known inaccurate model?

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.

surferdude wrote:

So theoretical physics is philosophy.

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?

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.

For as many people who believe in a higher power and the creation theory, and who reject the big bang theory, there are as many people who don't believe in a higher power but believe in science. Yet science itself is beginning to sound almost as unbelievable as faith in God does.

Just my 2 cents.