5 ms·

How do you decide what is "science" in the first place? How do you distinguish science from pseudoscience or religion?

• mannykannot 11y ago
  Science manages to figure that out without having to ask a philosopher. The philosophy of science did not precede the development of science; in fact, it was the other way around.
  • mf_tomb 11y ago
    There are still plenty of open questions. No one has just "figured out" confirmation and dealing with evidence. In fact, the way a lot science is done is incorrect and journals could learn a lot from Bayesian Epistemologists.
    • mannykannot 11y ago
      These issues were raised from within the scientific community, which is well-equipped to deal with them.
  • deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  • olavk 11y ago
    "without having to ask a philosopher"? What does that even mean? The distinction between scientist and philosophers is pretty recent. Clearly Aristotle was also a scientist even though we call him a philosopher, and clearly Bohr was also a philosopher even though we know him best as a scientist. Science and the philosophy of science have developed together, and often by the same people.
    • mannykannot 11y ago
      >"without having to ask a philosopher"? What does that even mean? I am at a loss as to how to be any clearer, but perhaps that's because I am looking at the whole sentence in the context of the thread. Could you be more specific about what problem you are having with it? There was a time when people doing science were considered philosophers; at the same time, some of them were considered astrologers or alchemists - Newton was active in both of these fields, and that was not, as it seems to some people now, an aberration or contradiction. These philosophers / astrologers / alchemists synthesized the scientific method, but the modern philosophy of science is descriptive, not prescriptive: philosophers like Popper and Kuhn were describing the scientific method as it had already been developed by practicing scientists, without being led there by academic philosophy. The historical role of people, who now are or were then regarded as philosophers, in the early development of science does not imply that current science is behoven to current academic philosophy. Your attempt to conflate philosophy and science raises the question of why a university would need an independent philosophy department, and I think you would find its members to be the ones most strongly defending its existence. If you were to go to the top of this thread, you would find that the distinction between science and philosophy is being made by pierrec’s philosopher-student friend. If you want to argue that there is no meaningful difference, perhaps you should first persuade the people who identify themselves as philosophers.
      • olavk 11y ago
        My point is that figuring out what constitutes science is philosophy, regardless of who does the figuring out. It's not like it is science if a scientist does the thinking but philosophy if someone from the philosophy department does the same.
        • mannykannot 11y ago
          The problem with this line of argument is that one could just as well say that logic is philosophy, so anyone who reasons about anything is a philosopher... it is not so much a wrong argument as it is a pointless one, leading to a trite and unhelpful conclusion that strips the word 'philosopher' of any useful meaning. In the context established by pierrec's original post, a more meaningful question is 'what contributions are academic philosophers currently making to the sciences?' Then there's the fact that you have ended up agreeing with me that scientists can do it themselves.
          • olavk 11y ago
            Of course scientists can do philosophy, that was my point in mentioning Bohr as an example. And before modern specialization there was no clear distinction between philosophy and science, and for example Kant also did natural science even though he is most well known as a philosopher Logic has traditionally (at least since Aristotle) been considered a critical branch of philosophy.
            • mannykannot 11y ago
              Neither of these facts refute any of the points I have made in this thread. Perhaps it would help if you were to state clearly what point you think you are making here, and why that point belongs in this thread.
              • olavk 11y ago
                That science needs philosophy like a hand needs a thumb.