3 ms·

Science departed from philosophy precisely when methodology about evidence and falsifiability of claims became involved. Without experiments to determine if a c

Science departed from philosophy precisely when methodology about evidence and falsifiability of claims became involved. Without experiments to determine if a claim is false, a branch of study is really just one big session of just-so stories, where some authority explains what they think and why they think it, supposedly proving it if it's explained convincingly and eloquently enough. Which is part of why I absolutely can't stand listening to philosophy. It's just not useful to hear people's opinions on things they can't possibly know for sure because of the very nature of the subject. What are you supposed to do with it? It feels like superstition with a veneer of academic legitimacy. By the way, being able to spot one of these when you hear it is a useful skill in life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

Brotkrumen 8y ago
Falsifiability, mh? Popper identified that in 1934. Before popper no scientist ever said "your claim is not falsifiable". So science before that was mere philosophy?
aninhumer 8y ago
I don't think you can criticise Philosophy for not "determining if a claim is false" because it doesn't make claims in the same way science does. I see Philosophy more as an exploration of the shape of our thoughts. It identifies particular vague ideas we have, defines them in more detail, and gives them names so we can discuss them. This gives people who study it exposure to a wider variety of ways of thinking, and often makes it easier to spot assumptions in other contexts. Indeed, at the point where you're doing an experiment to determine if a claim is false, you've already made a bunch of philosophical assumptions, such as the existence of a consistent material universe, and the validity of empirical inference. Which is not to say those assumptions aren't reasonable, but it's important to recognise that we're making them, rather than asserting that the results of science are "something we know for sure" and dismissing anything else as "just so stories".
empath75 8y ago
I guess you haven’t heard of logic? There’s two ways to gain knowledge.

Brotkrumen 8y ago

Falsifiability, mh? Popper identified that in 1934. Before popper no scientist ever said "your claim is not falsifiable". So science before that was mere philosophy?

aninhumer 8y ago

I don't think you can criticise Philosophy for not "determining if a claim is false" because it doesn't make claims in the same way science does. I see Philosophy more as an exploration of the shape of our thoughts. It identifies particular vague ideas we have, defines them in more detail, and gives them names so we can discuss them. This gives people who study it exposure to a wider variety of ways of thinking, and often makes it easier to spot assumptions in other contexts. Indeed, at the point where you're doing an experiment to determine if a claim is false, you've already made a bunch of philosophical assumptions, such as the existence of a consistent material universe, and the validity of empirical inference. Which is not to say those assumptions aren't reasonable, but it's important to recognise that we're making them, rather than asserting that the results of science are "something we know for sure" and dismissing anything else as "just so stories".

empath75 8y ago

I guess you haven’t heard of logic? There’s two ways to gain knowledge.