2 ms·
In this discussion I am regarding science as a strict subset of philosophy. One where more constraints are added. So of course philosophy can talk about anythi
by andybak 6y ago
In this discussion I am regarding science as a strict subset of philosophy. One where more constraints are added.
So of course philosophy can talk about anything science can because science is a branch of philosophy.
You can't do science without implicitly doing philosophy. Science relies on epistimology to justify it's foundations. Debates about whether topic A or topic B are really science is a philosophical debate. This isn't flippant intellectual game playing. Find a theoretical physicist and an experimental physicist arguing (which they tend to) and they are arguing about the philosophy of science and the nuances of the scientific method.
It's hard to do cosmology or particle physics without tripping over philosophy. "Shut up and calculate" can only take you so far.
- yakubin 6y agoBy that logic, chemistry is a branch of physics. Scientists argue about philosophy of science, because it's about their field. It doesn't make science a philosophy of science [EDIT: in previous version I wrote it the other way around]. > It's hard to do cosmology or particle physics without tripping over philosophy. "Shut up and calculate" can only take you so far. It's also hard to do cosmology or particle physics without using a computer, and scientists will argue the merits of C++ vs Julia vs Python; yet they aren't a branch of IT.
- BlueTemplar 6y agoIf you don't like the 'branch of' terminology, then what about : chemistry needs foundations based on physics and physics need a foundation based on mathematics/philosophy ? P.S.: We used to do particle physics and cosmology long before 'computer' became a name for a machine rather than a job.