4 ms·

Science and philosophy are complementary to each other, but it would be a mistake to take science as the ultimate arbiter of what reality is. That is not scienc

Science and philosophy are complementary to each other, but it would be a mistake to take science as the ultimate arbiter of what reality is. That is not science business, that is exactly philosophy business. Science is the practice of finding theories which can predict the patterns of blinking lights and ticking sounds of our sensors and instruments. In other words, it describes the behavior of the universe, while being agnostic on its nature. Philosophy on the other hand is concerned with what the universe intimately is. They are complementary because they inform each other and philosophy must stay coherent with empirical findings, but we also do science driven by certain assumptions which come from philosophy (materialism is a world-view, aka a philosophy). Science and philosophy have very different validity constraints, for instance, while science should be predictive, philosophy only needs to be internally consistent and parsimonious. They are the sides of the same coin, the what and the how. I think it's ludicrous to think that evolved monkeys will "figure out reality". No, the best we can do is to create for ourselves a coherent, empirically verified, integral and parsimonious world-view, and we will call that reality. This will come from philosophy, it will be informed by science sure, but those very scientists will be doing philosophy when interpreting their behavioral findings.

neonological 6y ago
Science is not the ultimate arbiter. There is no arbiter, foundational science rests on axiomatic assumptions and even with these assumptions in place it is not possible to prove a any statement to be true within the framework of science. Disproof is even technically not possible due to limited accuracy of our observational tools. You have a limited fuzzy understanding of science and I believe it is interfering with how you interpret the fusion of philosophy and science how it generates category errors.
- namero999 6y ago
  The same can be said of your understanding of philosophy and the ranking of your comments is telling. There is no category error. You are just simulacring one to put science on a higher pedestal because it is evident you have vested interest. If you'd actually analyze why you consider science superior to philosophy, you would be hard pressed not to notice that they are both endeavor of the human intellect that simply happen to use different axioms and validity constraints. It is just as "random", and as you mention in your very last comment, ultimately non falsifiable. How can there be a category error when they share such fundamental characteristics? The only thing that leaks out of your arguments is that you just "don't like" philosophy.
  - neonological 6y ago
    > How can there be a category error when they share such fundamental characteristics? The only thing that leaks out of your arguments is that you just "don't like" philosophy. Because every possible thing you can think of as a statement in the universe is unfalsifiable. Every single religion, to theory, to poem uttered by a little kid. Yet although they share the same flaw, Not all of these things are worth studying nor are they worth placing in the same random category. Only specific things line up with observation consistently according to our best available observations. Religion and ethics are not among these things. Logic and probability is. So why place these two things side by side and call it philosophy? It’s like randomly creating the philosophy of the paint on that wall and studying it as much as science. Both are completely arbitrary choices.

neonological 6y ago

Science is not the ultimate arbiter. There is no arbiter, foundational science rests on axiomatic assumptions and even with these assumptions in place it is not possible to prove a any statement to be true within the framework of science. Disproof is even technically not possible due to limited accuracy of our observational tools. You have a limited fuzzy understanding of science and I believe it is interfering with how you interpret the fusion of philosophy and science how it generates category errors.

namero999 6y ago
The same can be said of your understanding of philosophy and the ranking of your comments is telling. There is no category error. You are just simulacring one to put science on a higher pedestal because it is evident you have vested interest. If you'd actually analyze why you consider science superior to philosophy, you would be hard pressed not to notice that they are both endeavor of the human intellect that simply happen to use different axioms and validity constraints. It is just as "random", and as you mention in your very last comment, ultimately non falsifiable. How can there be a category error when they share such fundamental characteristics? The only thing that leaks out of your arguments is that you just "don't like" philosophy.
- neonological 6y ago
  > How can there be a category error when they share such fundamental characteristics? The only thing that leaks out of your arguments is that you just "don't like" philosophy. Because every possible thing you can think of as a statement in the universe is unfalsifiable. Every single religion, to theory, to poem uttered by a little kid. Yet although they share the same flaw, Not all of these things are worth studying nor are they worth placing in the same random category. Only specific things line up with observation consistently according to our best available observations. Religion and ethics are not among these things. Logic and probability is. So why place these two things side by side and call it philosophy? It’s like randomly creating the philosophy of the paint on that wall and studying it as much as science. Both are completely arbitrary choices.