Dubstepforum.com

Great quote from Carl Sagan's son Dorian on this:

The difference between science and philosophy is that the scientist learns more and more about less and less until she knows everything about nothing, whereas a philosopher learns less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything.

...and framed in the larger context:

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/ ... pprentice/

the difference between a scientist and a philosopher is that scientist does science whereas a philosopher just talks a bunch of random crap in cool intelligible prose

Science without philosophy has no conscience.

Philosophy =/= conscience

Science =/= wisdom.

definitely, but it can grant wisdom

Phigure wrote:definitely, but it can grant wisdom

Yep. It's teasing out the wisdom from the knowledge that seems tricky for us as a species. I once heard it expressed as "the difference between knowledge & wisdom is this: knowledge tells you how to build a fission reactor, while wisdom questions whether or not it is a good idea to build a fission reactor."

Or something like that.

Both science and philosophy appear to me to have suffered from some rigidification tho.

How exactly are we knowing science? What role is there for metaphysics? How do certain values become normative?

Science doesn't grant wisdom it may be a product of it and it may promote knowledge, when we're sure what knowledge is but it's not like these two subjects are either entirely distinct or completely unrelated.

now is that really a physics question?

De Broglie equation: lambda =h/m*v

where lambda is the wavelength of light,
h is plancks constant (6.63*10^-34)
m is mass
v is velocity

so, v = h/mass*wavelength

the wavelength of red light is 590nm (590*10^-9m)
I weigh 60kg

so (6.63*10^-34)/(60*590*10^-9) = 1.87*10^-29m/s

to conclude, if i walk very slowly, I will be red!

except that it doesnt apply to anything larger than fullerenes at best (just as how the wave function for your entire body cant interfere with itself like in the double slit experiment)

Phigure wrote:except that it doesnt apply to anything larger than fullerenes at best

Typical. That's just fucking typical. Physics ignoring the real molecules with curves, paying all the attention to the skin and bones fullerenes.

alphacat wrote:Science without philosophy has no conscience.

Philosophy only explains and interrogates conscience, it doesn't create it. Our biology creates our conscience.

Philosophy is one of the sciences. It used to be all of them.

Maths not Physics but still, found this interesting;


The problem in Good Will Hunting - Numberphile

magma wrote: Philosophy only explains and interrogates conscience, it doesn't create it. Our biology creates our conscience.

Philosophy is one of the sciences. It used to be all of them.

I agree to a point but then our conscience contributes to our morality and how we ground that, if we ground that, is down to philosophy.

Gryphonyx wrote:De Broglie equation: lambda =h/m*v

fun fact: de broglie is actually pronounced de breuil

scspkr99 wrote:

magma wrote: Philosophy only explains and interrogates conscience, it doesn't create it. Our biology creates our conscience.

Philosophy is one of the sciences. It used to be all of them.

I agree to a point but then our conscience contributes to our morality and how we ground that, if we ground that, is down to philosophy.

Other animals display morality without the need for written philosophy - at least a portion of morality seems to be naturally occurring due to the existence of empathy.

I see it as similar to how Physics deals with natural phenomena - physics doesn't create gravity, gravity is a fact of the Universe, but it does seek to explain it. Philosophy is just the science that deals with thought problems where physical tests can't be used, but where rational argument and systematic thought can - Schrodinger's Cat can be considered a philosophical problem. If you go back to the birthplace of modern science, ALL scientists, mathematicians, physicists, biologists - however many silos we've specialised into today - considered themselves philosophers. Seekers of wisdom.

magma wrote: Other animals display morality without the need for written philosophy - at least a portion of morality seems to be naturally occurring due to the existence of empathy.

I see it as similar to how Physics deals with natural phenomena - physics doesn't create gravity, gravity is a fact of the Universe, but it does seek to explain it. Philosophy is just the science that deals with thought problems where physical tests can't be used, but where rational argument and systematic thought can - Schrodinger's Cat can be considered a philosophical problem. If you go back to the birthplace of modern science, ALL scientists, mathematicians, physicists, biologists - however many silos we've specialised into today - considered themselves philosophers. Seekers of wisdom.

Whether it is moral to support abortion is also a philosophical question as is whether fermions and bosons exist or are representations of our current best science. I agree that all scientists at some point may have considered themselves philosophers but as our knowledge has grown the need to specialise has resulted in the silo's.

I get that empathetic behaviours exist in nature as do altruistic ones but these by themselves are not sufficient to declare morality an entirely natural phenomena. There are metaethical questions that don't have a natural equivalent and philosophy has a number of areas that don't really overlap. You aren't going to find much from Parfitt on scientific realism or much from Kuhn on utilitarianism.

scspkr99 wrote:

magma wrote: Other animals display morality without the need for written philosophy - at least a portion of morality seems to be naturally occurring due to the existence of empathy.

I see it as similar to how Physics deals with natural phenomena - physics doesn't create gravity, gravity is a fact of the Universe, but it does seek to explain it. Philosophy is just the science that deals with thought problems where physical tests can't be used, but where rational argument and systematic thought can - Schrodinger's Cat can be considered a philosophical problem. If you go back to the birthplace of modern science, ALL scientists, mathematicians, physicists, biologists - however many silos we've specialised into today - considered themselves philosophers. Seekers of wisdom.

Whether it is moral to support abortion is also a philosophical question as is whether fermions and bosons exist or are representations of our current best science. I agree that all scientists at some point may have considered themselves philosophers but as our knowledge has grown the need to specialise has resulted in the silo's.

I get that empathetic behaviours exist in nature as do altruistic ones but these by themselves are not sufficient to declare morality an entirely natural phenomena. There are metaethical questions that don't have a natural equivalent and philosophy has a number of areas that don't really overlap. You aren't going to find much from Parfitt on scientific realism or much from Kuhn on utilitarianism.

Well quite, in the same way as I wouldn't expect to find a Penrose paper on DNA - over the last 500-odd years science has been split into countless specialities. But just because there are also specialist areas of philosophy, doesn't mean that it's not a science... and doesn't mean that a lot of sciences aren't examples of philosophy. Philosophy is a very broad concept!

I'm fairly comfortable that some morality is naturally occurring and that a lot is influenced by experience of society, but that doesn't stop it being a scientific phenomenon. Everything any brain does is a scientific phenomenon. All I was disagreeing with was alphacat's assertion that philosophy was different to science - I say it's just one of the silos.

If we put theology to one side (can be argued to be non-scientific), I don't think there's much difference between a philosophical investigation and a scientific one... they both adhere to the scientific method; they just apply it to different sorts of problems. The same way that Maths, Physics, Biology and Chemistry deal with different sorts of problems using the same method. They're all sciences.

Plato and Aristotle called themselves philosophers but did more to define the scientific method than most "scientists" that have followed.

magma wrote:
If we put theology to one side (can be argued to be non-scientific), I don't think there's much difference between a philosophical investigation and a scientific one... they both adhere to the scientific method as described by ; they just take on different sorts of problems. The same way that Maths, Physics, Biology and Chemistry deal with different sorts of problems. They're all sciences.

Thats not really true. The scientific method requires measurable and empirical evidence, philosophy doesnt necessarily. The scientific method is only one method of crafting knowledge (a good one) but philosophy covers all of them.