48 ms·

I might misunderstand philosophy, but I think about it like this: scientists gather data, run experiments, etc. while philosophers draw conclusions. Sure most/m

by skizm 12y ago

I might misunderstand philosophy, but I think about it like this: scientists gather data, run experiments, etc. while philosophers draw conclusions. Sure most/maybe all scientists draw their own conclusions (it is pretty much the only way to get published) but sometimes the conclusions are not so obvious. Does the Heisenberg uncertainty principle mean we have free will? Can free will exist? What sort of (theoretical) evidence would we need to disprove free will? Is that line of questioning philosophy or science? I'm really not sure. I think you take a headlong leap into science when you start running tests, but I'm not sure at what point talk turns from philosophy to science. In the end, everyone is just trying to make a more accurate map, right?

Amezarak 12y ago
You don't need to go all the way to physics for free will - you need look no farther than psychology to determine whether free will exists or not. Actually, you don't need to look any farther than a serious philosophical treatment of what you mean by "free will" to see that the question itself is a confused one based on untenable (or even more confused) assumptions. Nevertheless the belief in free will is very important for human happiness; or at least, happy and/or successful people tend to believe in free will, or just that their will is free and they're the master of their fates and the captain of their souls. That is often the motive behind free will arguments, which generally have a very powerful smell of rationalization about them, but a thing is not necessarily true because human happiness (or even life) requires believing it is true or leads to the feeling it must be true.
vacri 12y ago
In the end, everyone is just trying to make a more accurate map, right? Pretty much... which is why philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive. If they were, there wouldn't be an area of philosophy called the 'philosophy of science', which concerns itself with the best ways to acquire knowledge. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

by skizm 12y ago

Amezarak 12y ago

You don't need to go all the way to physics for free will - you need look no farther than psychology to determine whether free will exists or not. Actually, you don't need to look any farther than a serious philosophical treatment of what you mean by "free will" to see that the question itself is a confused one based on untenable (or even more confused) assumptions. Nevertheless the belief in free will is very important for human happiness; or at least, happy and/or successful people tend to believe in free will, or just that their will is free and they're the master of their fates and the captain of their souls. That is often the motive behind free will arguments, which generally have a very powerful smell of rationalization about them, but a thing is not necessarily true because human happiness (or even life) requires believing it is true or leads to the feeling it must be true.

vacri 12y ago

In the end, everyone is just trying to make a more accurate map, right? Pretty much... which is why philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive. If they were, there wouldn't be an area of philosophy called the 'philosophy of science', which concerns itself with the best ways to acquire knowledge. :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science