4 ms·

Bertrand Russell: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculation

Bertrand Russell: Philosophy, as I shall understand the word, is something intermediate between theology and science. Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation. All definite knowledge—so I should contend— belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy

ILikeConemowk 8y ago
Thanks for this.
nyc111 8y ago
This seems a qoute from the Introduction of his History of western philosophy [1]. But I think the next sentence is important too: Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. [...] To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy. But I’m surprised that he considers that “all definite knowledge ... belongs to science.” Science, at least physics and astronomy, by definition, accept that their type of knowledge is provisional, always, and not definite. [1] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-which-publication-does-bertrand-russell-define-philosophy https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-whic...
- charlysl 8y ago
  You are right about the quote. It seems that what Russell considers definite knowledge is ... answer can be found in the laboratory. It depends on what is the best available method for proving, to the extent to which this is possible, a given hypothesis. Whenever an experimental method in the scientific sense is possible, then he considers that kind of knowledge definite. I agree that the fact that it is also provisional is confusing, but I think that it's just a matter of language in this case, maybe definite is not the best word. I agree that maybe his definition is not fully satisfactory. But this book's audience is lay people like me, it is not as much an academic work as a book of popular philosophy (like popular science). For this reason, he probably preferred to write engaging prose, rather than being totally precise but dry. I posted this quote because whenever there is an article about philosophy in HN, people invariably enter a debate as to what exactly is philosophy. I find that for the lay man his definition is very clear, simple, memorable and beautifully written. I find it very useful in practice, for people like me it is a powerful definition.
  - nyc111 8y ago
    Yes, I agree. He theologian's knowledge is definite in the sense of absolute. But knowledge gained in the lab is definitely knowledge under given circumstances, but absolute kndwledge. This turned out to be a good example about the importance of clear definitions of words in philosophical discussion.
- geoka9 8y ago
  > physics .. accept that their type of knowledge is ... not definite I think it's definite as long as the horse is spherical and in a vacuum. I mean a scientific theory that's built on such an assumption is definite knowledge, right?
  - nyc111 8y ago
    I think you are being sarcastic, but I happen to agree with you that there are lots of physics theories based on spherical cow assumption.

ILikeConemowk 8y ago

Thanks for this.

nyc111 8y ago

This seems a qoute from the Introduction of his History of western philosophy [1]. But I think the next sentence is important too: Almost all the questions of most interest to speculative minds are such as science cannot answer, and the confident answers of theologians no longer seem so convincing as they did in former centuries. [...] To such questions no answer can be found in the laboratory. Theologies have professed to give answers, all too definite; but their very definiteness causes modern minds to view them with suspicion. The studying of these questions, if not the answering of them, is the business of philosophy. But I’m surprised that he considers that “all definite knowledge ... belongs to science.” Science, at least physics and astronomy, by definition, accept that their type of knowledge is provisional, always, and not definite. [1] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-which-publication-does-bertrand-russell-define-philosophy https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/51485/in-whic...

charlysl 8y ago
You are right about the quote. It seems that what Russell considers definite knowledge is ... answer can be found in the laboratory. It depends on what is the best available method for proving, to the extent to which this is possible, a given hypothesis. Whenever an experimental method in the scientific sense is possible, then he considers that kind of knowledge definite. I agree that the fact that it is also provisional is confusing, but I think that it's just a matter of language in this case, maybe definite is not the best word. I agree that maybe his definition is not fully satisfactory. But this book's audience is lay people like me, it is not as much an academic work as a book of popular philosophy (like popular science). For this reason, he probably preferred to write engaging prose, rather than being totally precise but dry. I posted this quote because whenever there is an article about philosophy in HN, people invariably enter a debate as to what exactly is philosophy. I find that for the lay man his definition is very clear, simple, memorable and beautifully written. I find it very useful in practice, for people like me it is a powerful definition.
- nyc111 8y ago
  Yes, I agree. He theologian's knowledge is definite in the sense of absolute. But knowledge gained in the lab is definitely knowledge under given circumstances, but absolute kndwledge. This turned out to be a good example about the importance of clear definitions of words in philosophical discussion.
geoka9 8y ago
> physics .. accept that their type of knowledge is ... not definite I think it's definite as long as the horse is spherical and in a vacuum. I mean a scientific theory that's built on such an assumption is definite knowledge, right?
- nyc111 8y ago
  I think you are being sarcastic, but I happen to agree with you that there are lots of physics theories based on spherical cow assumption.