Science vs. Philosophy

[magnifier661]

Denny made a claim about the way things should be, not the way they are.

I'm pointing out that the things we as a collective tend to agree on are driven by science. The things we don't agree on are driven by philosophy. Why is philosophy a better course?

I think science is too black and white. There are situations when someone may have broken the law: but the perception of the law enforcement agency just looked the other way,

Think of it like the guy that has a dime bag if weed for his personal use and a cop takes him to jail. He broke the law, but should he really go to jail and have his life ruined by it? Science says yes, philosophy says "what intent, will it help?"

 

[Further]

I think science is too black and white. There are situations when someone may have broken the law: but the perception of the law enforcement agency just looked the other way,

Think of it like the guy that has a dime bag if weed for his personal use and a cop takes him to jail. He broke the law, but should he really go to jail and have his life ruined by it? Science says yes, philosophy says "what intent, will it help?"

Science does not say yes, it does not say no. Science simply informs. Philosophy applies value to that information and creates the yes or no.

I have no idea how you are thinking that science says "yes" in this case, please explain.

 

[crowTrobot]

Think of it like the guy that has a dime bag if weed for his personal use and a cop takes him to jail. He broke the law, but should he really go to jail and have his life ruined by it? Science says yes, philosophy says "what intent, will it help?"

science doesn't say anything. it's just the tool you use to answer the question will it help.

 

[magnifier661]

science doesn't say anything. it's just the tool you use to answer the question will it help.

It says a lot. It's a tool; just like you pointed out. A firearm is a tool. That tool can be used by one to kill for bad and others to protect.

A psychiatrist can use science as a tool as well; but in the end; help is made by the philosophical approach.

 

[crowTrobot]

It says a lot. It's a tool; just like you pointed out. A firearm is a tool. That tool can be used by one to kill for bad and others to protect.

A psychiatrist can use science as a tool as well; but in the end; help is made by the philosophical approach.

help is made by the spread of observation-driven common sense. people who are changing their views on this issue aren't all having simultaneous philosophical revelations.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

If you're really interested in science and how it ties in with morality, read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. Harris has a degree in philosophy and a Ph.D in neuroscience, so he has an interesting twist on things; it really makes you think.

 

[Denny Crane]

Why is philosophy a better choice?

Because Democrats tend to SHARE a very similar philosophy with one another. It shapes the policies they push. Same is true for Republicans. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with living a fulfilling life.

Science in no way shape or form tells us that slavery is evil. Philosophy does.

Science in no way shape or form tells us that it's bad to (medically/surgically, etc/) experiment on live human beings. Philosophy tells us it is bad. Though some philosophy (Nazis) might find it not bad.

Science in no way shape or form tells us we should form a more perfect union. Philosophy does.

Science in no way shape or form tells us we shouldn't launch missiles at London like the Nazis did. But the Nazi scientists did their job and made the rockets. It's not about those scientists being bad guys - the science led to where it led. The philosophers in charge abused their work product.


&c.

 

[Denny Crane]

help is made by the spread of observation-driven common sense. people who are changing their views on this issue aren't all having simultaneous philosophical revelations.

Common sense isn't science either

 

[crowTrobot]

Common sense isn't science either

call it what you want. common sense is result of evolved instinct and experience. no philosophy involved.

 

[crowTrobot]

Why is philosophy a better choice?

Because Democrats tend to SHARE a very similar philosophy with one another.

so did the Nazis

It shapes the policies they push. Same is true for Republicans.

when and where it does, each tends to view the other side's philosophy as misguided, and relying on philosophical considerations ends up being divisive. one could say our current two party system is "evil" : )

It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with living a fulfilling life.

false dichotomy. science and philosophy are both tools we use to achieve fulfilling lives.

Science in no way shape or form tells us that slavery is evil. Philosophy does.

the term evil is too vague to be meaningful without context. science certainly has a lot to say about the negative social implications of slavery.

Science in no way shape or form tells us that it's bad to (medically/surgically, etc/) experiment on live human beings. Philosophy tells us it is bad. Though some philosophy (Nazis) might find it not bad.

as with slavery science has a lot to say about negative social/psychological implications of living in a world where experimenting on live humans was allowed. otherwise without external context "bad" is just a vague, undefined term similar to evil.

Science in no way shape or form tells us we should form a more perfect union. Philosophy does.

"should" (and perfect) are the vague, meaningless terms here. if you define what you specifically mean by those this statement becomes a hypothesis supportable by science.

Science in no way shape or form tells us we shouldn't launch missiles at London like the Nazis did.

vague = "shouldn't".

obviously there are empirical reasons we shouldn't start wars if we value our own life and well being. you could say that our valuation of those things is "philosophical", but as previously harped on it is also driven by evolution so it's not all that simple.

this premise of this thread seems a bit incoherent. it's obvious science plays a big part in determining moral consensus and will continue to do so, so i'm not sure what you're actually arguing for. I know you have a huge issue with the actions of individual scientists and what you think is a broken system driven more by funding than seeking beneficial research, but that has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science itself in determining how we can fulfill whatever goals we have.

 

[Denny Crane]

call it what you want. common sense is result of evolved instinct and experience. no philosophy involved.

Instinct. Very good. Like why we and dogs and cats are afraid of heights.

But common sense is not something you're born with. It's experience for sure.

So what if it's not philosophy? It isn't science.

 

[Denny Crane]

so did the Nazis



when and where it does, each tends to view the other side's philosophy as misguided, and relying on philosophical considerations ends up being divisive. one could say our current two party system is "evil" : )



false dichotomy. science and philosophy are both tools we use to achieve fulfilling lives.



the term evil is too vague to be meaningful without context. science certainly has a lot to say about the negative social implications of slavery.



as with slavery science has a lot to say about negative social/psychological implications of living in a world where experimenting on live humans was allowed. otherwise without external context "bad" is just a vague, undefined term similar to evil.



"should" (and perfect) are the vague, meaningless terms here. if you define what you specifically mean by those this statement becomes a hypothesis supportable by science.



vague = "shouldn't".

obviously there are empirical reasons we shouldn't start wars if we value our own life and well being. you could say that our valuation of those things is "philosophical", but as previously harped on it is also driven by evolution so it's not all that simple.

this premise of this thread seems a bit incoherent. it's obvious science plays a big part in determining moral consensus and will continue to do so, so i'm not sure what you're actually arguing for. I know you have a huge issue with the actions of individual scientists and what you think is a broken system driven more by funding than seeking beneficial research, but that has nothing to do with the actual usefulness of science itself in determining how we can fulfill whatever goals we have.

The premise of the thread is "So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy."

Science plays no part in determining anything moral whatsoever. What does e=mc^2 have to do with good or evil / right or wrong? Nothing. It is what it is.

With slavery, for example, science told us some people were savages and inferior, less intelligent etc. That's up until the 1930s and even later. Common sense and philosophy told the republicans of the 1850s and 1860s that there was no such inferiority and that slavery was evil.

You seem to be saying that science can't deal with vagaries, which is fine. It isn't the answer to everything. It's certainly nothing we should govern by.

 

[crowTrobot]

The premise of the thread is "So Science should be a guide, but you have to rule by some other means. Philosophy."

who's philosophy? and how would you go about ruling by science? that seems nonsensical.

again I don't think it's clear what exactly you are advocating. when you imply that we shouldn't be ruled by science do you mean we shouldn't be ruled by scientists? that would make more sense.

Science plays no part in determining anything moral whatsoever.

it does in a lot of cases if you're working from an already established moral basis, which we generally are (valuation of individual and socially collective happiness and well being, maximal extension of human life).

With slavery, for example, science told us some people were savages and inferior, less intelligent etc.

who's us? most people who believed that did so based on expectations stemming from religious philosophy.

You seem to be saying that science can't deal with vagaries

neither can philosophy in any objective sense.

It's certainly nothing we should govern by.

don't know what that means.

 

[Denny Crane]

About 99 parts philosophy to 1 part science is about right.

Governing doesn't require much in the objective sense. It requires common sense or a real strong belief in a philosophy that's been derived from decades or centuries of debate in the realm of thought and ideas.

 

[Further]

...
[video]

 

[crowTrobot]

About 99 parts philosophy to 1 part science is about right.

Governing doesn't require much in the objective sense. It requires common sense or a real strong belief in a philosophy that's been derived from decades or centuries of debate in the realm of thought and ideas.

I don't distinguish between common sense and objectivity. I think any consensus on the validity or value of specific thoughts and ideas is reached through experience, not debate. guess we aren't going to be able to view these things on the same level.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't distinguish between common sense and objectivity. I think any consensus on the validity or value of specific thoughts and ideas is reached through experience, not debate. guess we aren't going to be able to view these things on the same level.

Common sense merely means the ability to react to a situation with a sort of good grace. It's based upon experience, not upon objectivity or scientific method. For example, you know not to jump off the 15 ft. high roof because you once jumped off the 6 ft. high fence and it was scary enough. You don't necessarily know the roof is 15 ft. and the fence 6 ft. since you don't have a tape measure or other objective means of measuring height.

Often, common sense involves dealing with situations you have no experience with at all with that same kind of grace.

Hell, we elect presidents who have no experience running a nation, and they get by on their ability to make judgments from their common sense and experiences.

The debate on this site has historically been religion vs. science. There is an alternative to both, and that is philosophy. I'm not at all calling for anything religious to be involved. I don't consider Robert Nozick or John Rawls or even the village idiot Paul Krugman to be religious or scientists, but I do find them to be influential of thought when it comes to governing.

 

[crowTrobot]

Common sense merely means the ability to react to a situation with a sort of good grace. It's based upon experience, not upon objectivity or scientific method. For example, you know not to jump off the 15 ft. high roof because you once jumped off the 6 ft. high fence and it was scary enough. You don't necessarily know the roof is 15 ft. and the fence 6 ft. since you don't have a tape measure or other objective means of measuring height.

Often, common sense involves dealing with situations you have no experience with at all with that same kind of grace.

grace? you're describing using science-like reasoning - making predictions based on past experience, if not strictly the scientific method (which as it relates to your OP is an irrelevant distinction). this is true even for the situations a president would have no experience with, because you're describing the application of different types of experience to those situations. common sense is the use of basic knowledge gained through experience. essentially this IS science. it has nothing to do with philosophy, unless you want to refer to science as "a" type of philosophy, which is cool.

Hell, we elect presidents who have no experience running a nation, and they get by on their ability to make judgments from their common sense and experiences.

yes, and they tend to piss half the country off when they make judgments based on personal philosophy without scientific justification.

 

[Denny Crane]

Science isn't personal experience. I think you may be on the silly side of things with that claim.

Science has to be repeatable by scientists everywhere. No two people share the same experiences.

 

[crowTrobot]

Science isn't personal experience.

your example of roof jumping is science-like reasoning, not philosophy. common sense is science-like reasoning, not philosophy.

 

[Denny Crane]

your example of roof jumping is science-like reasoning, not philosophy. common sense is science-like reasoning, not philosophy.

I think there may be people out there who can make the 15 ft. jump. It's subjective, not objective.

And still there's the sticky point about observations being repeatable everywhere in the universe.

 

[magnifier661]

The debate on this site has historically been religion vs. science. There is an alternative to both, and that is philosophy. I'm not at all calling for anything religious to be involved. I don't consider Robert Nozick or John Rawls or even the village idiot Paul Krugman to be religious or scientists, but I do find them to be influential of thought when it comes to governing.

Wow that was one of the best paragraphs I've read from you. Nice way of putting it.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Explain this using science OR philosophy, not both...

 

[crowTrobot]

I think there may be people out there who can make the 15 ft. jump. It's subjective, not objective.

there is an objective probability of injury for a particular individual at a particular height (along with other factors). the only subjectivity comes from (intentionally) leaving the particulars vague.

in any case the example has no relation to your OP, since governing affects the populous, not just those who govern. it's odd but by attempting to downplay the role of science in government it seems like you are on the borderline of advocating totalitarianism in this thread, which I know is the polar opposite of your views.

 

[Denny Crane]

My fingernail grew a fraction of a millimeter while I enter this post. Therefore, it's science? Wow..,

I advocate a separation of govt. from all but a few things. Church, science, and education are the obvious places to start.

 

[Further]

A government needs to build a bridge. Philosophy, faith or science, which one is the best tool to use in building the right type, right strength, right length, right height, right width, right price, right duration for this bridge?

 

[Denny Crane]

A government needs to build a bridge. Philosophy, faith or science, which one is the best tool to use in building the right type, right strength, right length, right height, right width, right price, right duration for this bridge?

Engineering.

 

[crowTrobot]

My fingernail grew a fraction of a millimeter while I enter this post. Therefore, it's science? Wow..,

if you insist on creating a dichotomy between philosophy and science, measuring or noticing the growth of your fingernail is obviously science.

I advocate a separation of govt. from all but a few things. Church, science, and education are the obvious places to start.

yeah I know you do, but you're talking about something different than your OP here - government agendas shouldn't influence the direction of scientific research etc.

 

[Further]

Engineering.

That's science

 

[Denny Crane]

That's science

No it's not.

Here's a bunch of scientists?