- @tomasz@lemmy.mlbanned to
- â˘
- 5 hilabete
- @tomasz@lemmy.mlbanned to
- â˘
- 5 hilabete
You must log in or register to comment.
A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
- Open ended
- Not offensive
- Not regarding lemmy support (c/lemmy_support)
- not ad nauseam inducing (please make sure its a question that would be new to most members)
itâs welcome here!
- 0 users online
- 34 users / day
- 64 users / week
- 144 users / month
- 514 users / 6 months
- 8 subscribers
- 1.16K Posts
- 12.1K Comments
- Modlog
Itâs implausible. Epistemology (the theory of knowledge) is a branch of philosophy in which Science came to be born out of. Philosophy englobes Science, the scientific method is the creation of philosophers. Thus, Science cannot in any way whatsoever absorb Philosophy when in fact the inverse is the actual reality.
No.
Sciences are a subset of philosophy.
They ask different questions.
Iâd say that science and philosophy serve distinct and complementary roles.
Science is focused on the objective. It provides us with the tools for developing empirical understanding of how the natural world works. Meanwhile, philosophy focuses on the subjective. It provides us with a framework for deciding on what should be done and why.
In other words, science provides us with the tools to take action while philosophy provides us with guidance on how to use these tools.
(sorry in advance for any typos)
Your idea isnât necessarily wrong, but I want to take it a step further.
Separating culture (here you said philosophy) and science, and in general, separating what is deemed to be objective from what is deemed to be the subjective, is typical of so called modern thought. But letâs take a step back and see this issue from another perspective where thereâs no silver line separating the Subject from the Object, Philosophy from Science, Culture from Nature, the Human from the Non Human. If we take into account this illusion of purifying amd classifying the universe, an alternative conception of the world unravels; all entities would possess equal metaphysical value and development towards an objective end goal seems to lose all meaning (is techological development linear? Does it help us arrive at our ultimate goal?)
I think itâs fallacious to separate between the subjective and the objective and give each their own specific functions to oraganize our social constructions. Thatâs because beyond our insulated thought process, in the concrete world, the Subjective and Objective (Science and Philosophy, Science and Politics or whatever the separation may be) are being simultaneously employed, they are one and the same. How many times, when reading/watching news about scientific phenomenon (say an environmental issue) being, the scientific experts in the field would implicitly imply a political statement. It has always been in front of our eyes but it was about now that we can see how a statement that is deemed objective and factual may contain a subjective message embedded in its core.
I would argue that goals are inherently subjective. A decision to take a particular action or to achieve a particular result is fundamentally subjective. Whether something is desirable or not is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. People can agree on objective state of things, but disagree on whether the state of things is desirable.
However, the ideal of science deals with objective facts the truth of which is independent of our interpretations or desires. Science allows us to create models of the material world around us and to use these models in order to manipulate it. Science is simply a tool for analyzing and manipulating the world effectively.
The use of this tool is rooted in subjective desires that we have, and philosophy helps guide us in application of our knowledge that we derive from science. It is fundamentally a study of the subjective.
That said, you are correct that in practice we rarely draw a clear distinction between the objective and the subjective. In fact, people will often treat their subjective views as if they were objective facts.
Sure, we can have an ideal, but this is very far from what reality shows us. Science canât be placed in an insulated bubble of disinterest and objectivity (Something unfortunate that liberal thought overgeneralized and was adopted by the global common sense). I fully disagree when people say âoh why yes science is a disinterested that can be used for both good and evilâ, but itâs more than that because moral intent is inseparable from science. The scientific method itself was developed by solitary philosophers who sat for hours in their high towers isolated from their community. Subjectivity is in the core of the scientific method, which is why nasty terms like eugenics, racialism, parapsychologyâŚetc. were considered sciences. This is why many âscientific experimentsâ affirmed the supremacy of one race over another, a gender over the other and so on. Letâs not forget as well Scienceâs discriminatory nature towards non human entities, mere objects that are âdesignedâ to be exploited for the âcommon goodâ.
Science isnât objective, itâs human. Itâs the collective perceptions, thoughts and conclusions we as humans have made of Nature when we ourselves are an integral part of this nature. How we see the world around us is ewually valuable to how an animal or even a rock could maybe see it. Letâs forget the idea that weâre observing nature from the outside, because weâre in fact inside of it and reacting with it. Subjectivity shouldnât be refuted (as it is the case tiday) or else we fall into delusion.
I donât think weâre disagreeing here. As I said in my original comment, science and philosophy serve distinct and complementary roles. Theyâre two sides of the same coin because as you point out everything we do is inherently subjective. However, it is valuable to recognize which aspect focuses on the objective and which on the subjective.
The difference between objectivity and subjectivity is that objectivity is independent of our wishes and beliefs. If I subjectively convince myself that I can fly that isnât going to make it so no matter what I happen to think.
To me, philosophy is like the trunk of the tree that sciences form. So to me is kind of part of science. So your question is will this trunk eventually stop and the âtreeâ only grows outward. I donât know, but if I had to guess, I think the trunk will go on forever.
(Yes, this is simplified and science is more a network than a tree, but its structure is not perfectly homogeneous and philosophy kind of act as a trunk to me.)
Yes, philosophy is the base
No. We only know what science is because of philosophy. If that basis for science became science, then the truth of science would have to presuppose itself, a set of ideas that would be true in and of themselves, which is clearly fallacious.
Also, the sciences deal with descriptive reality. They say nothing about how the world should be or how we should act.
In my opinion, this is a ridiculous question and demonstrates why we need better education in the humanities.
Why do you find the question ridiculous?
Science for the most part is applied and structured philosophy. Every science has philosophical implications to them. Knowledge generation will always have to interact with philosophical discourse given that nothing in this universe is a âgivenâ. Everything needs to be and can be questioned in a manner that doesnât work well with any currently structured framework or methodology of approach, whether it be in science or mathematics.
Aside from that, a lot of ethical and political problems in the world, by their nature, need to begin their studies in a philosophical fashion. Whether they ultimately use mathematics and science to conclude their framework is a different conversation as a whole.
@altair222 But religion, which is complete opposite of science and scientific method also stem from philosophy. Humanities, which may or may not involve science also stems from philosophy.
This makes philosophy not part of capital S âScienceâ.
As for @tomaszâs question, no, I donât think so, not completely. Science is almost all-powerful, thatâs true. But only almost. There are blind spots to it, sometimes itâs too strict for its own good, especially around the edges, where thereâs either too much (think society) or too little (thinkpersonal, subjective stuff) data, the method starts to fail. So, treacheruos and dark arts-y it may be at times, there will still be room for philosophy and things like humanities.
What is capital s âscienceâ per se? Do you mean academic research?
Definitely not. If nothing else, my view is that thereâs a lot of questions that just cannot be scientifically answered because theyâre not the sort of thing where thereâs objective truth, but we as a society have to have a conversation and find what works. Think values.
No
They serve to two different things, its like saying that airplanes replaced houses, science studies the reality from an objective and scientific (duh) point of view, while philosophy questions more moral, metaphysical and abstract concepts that science could never
@tomasz
âŚalready was
I hope so, and itâs sort-of the aim.
Hume and Lockeâs writings are often on âPhilosophy of Mindâ - a subject which wasnât at the time anything like a science. Nowadays, lots of the mind is squarely under the purview of neuroscience, or psychology.
Utilitarianism was always a branch hoping to involve science, and eventually become law. Bentham - the originator - stated this should be the methodology for writing laws. Instead of vague moral debates, we should answer the single question âwhat would bring the most utility to people?â.
What makes you think moral debates are âvagueâ?
A masterâs degree in Philosophy, specializing in ethical theory.
Take for example, the statement âhe didnât deserve thatâ. How do we find out if thatâs true?
Or we can look at the lack of epistemological grounding. If I bet you âŹ5 that some building is taller than another, we can go online, find out whoâs right, and the moneyâs paid out.
Now imagine I bet you that fur clothing is always morally wrong. How could the money get paid out? What evidence would make a publicly available conclusion?
Moralism and ethics is difficult, but isnât even the question âwhat would bring the most utility to people?â in the spirit of Bentham a subjective one depending on what one feels about something? What gives you happiness or benefit could cause me immense grief and put me at an disadvantage, no?
Right - the ideaâs not to conclude with âtomatoes bring utility - letâs make tomatoesâ. The ideaâs to maximize total utility, given a population with different values.
Iâm very interested in this topic, how would you define the maximal total utility for a group with different values? And is there a limit to optimization for a group before it starts coming at a cost for subgroups?
I understand that itâs easy to revert to an argument of a homogeneous group, but unless everyone is identical - even the slightest difference could lead to large splits. In a global perspective, the difference between i.e. catholics and protestants are comperatively small yet some experience a large divide.
Iâll try to condense what Iâve read with some bullet points:
Yes - every difference in someoneâs individual utility mappings can affect a given decision, but itâs not all that crazy once you look at real-world examples.
Yes - and utilitarians wonât add any suggestions on where to take the split.
5 people want to go to the cinema. 2 of them love Marvel, 1 hates Marvel. The currently playing films are ...Mathematically, this example threatens to become insanely challenging, but we make these decisions every day, so clearly weâre making some attempt to maximize utility, even if weâre not 100% successful.
This is an easy one - donât take global perspectives when making decisions, unless itâs a question with a super-homogenous answer like âshould people get stabbed by rabbid monkeys?â.
I think no one is being vague except for you. Before even saying âhe didnât deserve thatâ, anyone from a philosophical background would ask a thousand questions to you, starting with âhe who?â, âwhat happened to himâ, âhe did what?â
So youâre saying speach about Ethics isnât vague, because someone whoâs studied philosophy would ask one thousand questions about the situation. Is that what youâre saying?
Those were like three basic questions that naturally come to mind when someone suddenly talks about justice⌠Dude please dont ever work in politics, please dont, please okay?
Why all the hate?
Because I dont take authority appeal and bad faith arguments lightly
k