Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method

[Sunstone]

Maybe I can explain the problem, @paarsurrey. Try thinking of science as using your eyes to see something. Now try thinking of philosophy as using your nose to smell something.

That's the first step.

Let's go one step further...

Which of those -- seeing or smelling -- might be best for studying a painting in a well lighted room? Seeing, right?

And which of those -- seeing or smelling -- might be best for studying a dish of food in a pitch black room? Smelling, right?

Do you grasp what I'm trying to get at?

Science is good for investigating things that can either be empirically observed or that have effects that can be empirically observed. Science is good for studying things you can sense or things that have effects you can sense. It is good for studying trees and atoms. Unfortunately, it often sucks as a means for investigating non-empirical things.

Philosophy has a much harder task, but it's all we have for investigating things that can neither be empirically observed nor have effects that can be empirically observed. Philosophy is all we have for studying things we cannot sense or that do not have effects we can sense. It is all we have for studying ethics and metaphysical things. Unfortunately, it often sucks as a means for investigating empirical things.

I'm being a little superficial here, a little 'simple-minded' here, but I'm trying to make this as easy to understand as I can. I so wish I spoke Punjabi, or Urdu. Unfortunately, I do not have your brains for languages. I have only ever been able to learn English.

 

[Sunstone]

Why go into "probability", please? Please express it with certainty. Right, please?

Regards

He was saying, "Science involves testing nature, and philosophy does not involve testing nature."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Maybe it's me, but I cannot make sense of the OP.

To me, the question(s) are like asking "Can the discharge of lightning, the distillation of water, and a car's gas mileage all be strummed on a banjo".

Is there some way to clarify what's being asked?

Would it help if you knew what colour the banjo was?

 

[paarsurrey]

None,it belongs to language

But it is what makes all science science

I agree it neither belongs to science nor philosophy.
Science has to borrow from other natural means created by G-d for the benefit of man, not belonging to the specific domain of science of physical and material, to know "What works" and what does not work. Science is restricted and encircled by its limitations. Our truthful G-d has bound it with limitations that it cannot surpass. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Sunstone]

Would it help if you knew what colour the banjo was?

Immensely! That, after all, is the key piece of the puzzle.

 

[paarsurrey]

The simple answer is no.

The Scientific Method is not an invention of philosophy. Science actually evolved from empirical problem solving methods to find out 'what works' for human utility purposes and benefits.

Contemporary Scientific Method does involve what is Methodological Naturalism developed in its present form Popper as the process of the 'Falsification' of theories and hypothesis.This 'Philosophy of Science' developed as 'How to think about results and conclusion of empirical scientific methods which are based on more practical considerations of 'What works.';

"What works"

One may like to read post #24 for what works.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

He was saying, "Science involves testing nature, and philosophy does not involve testing nature."

Yes, I understand.

Regards

 

[PureX]

Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method?

I understand that all or many aspects of Philosophy cannot be proved / evidenced or demonstrated to be reliable by the Scientific Method.
Right, please?

Regards

No philosophical proposition can be proven by science. However, most can be supported by the evidence of physicality. Keep in mind that the scientific method 'proves' nothing, ever. Science is not a system for establishing conceptual proofs. It's a system for validating or invalidating a theory within a limited physical context.

 

[HonestJoe]

I agree it neither belongs to science nor philosophy.
Science has to borrow from other natural means created by G-d for the benefit of man, not belonging to the specific domain of science of physical and material, to know "What works" and what does not work. Science is restricted and encircled by its limitations. Our truthful G-d has bound it with limitations that it cannot surpass. Right, please?

Wrong, thank-you. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the god you believe in exists or created anything. You can have your faith if you want but you can't simple declare it as unquestionable truth.

 

[paarsurrey]

Immensely! That, after all, is the key piece of the puzzle.

There is no puzzle there, the OP is to decipher the puzzle of life with the help of friends here and to help them in this connection.

Regards
________

View attachment 39436

 

[PureX]

Wrong, thank-you. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the god you believe in exists or created anything. You can have your faith if you want but you can't simple declare it as unquestionable truth.

There are any number of REASONS, what there isn't, is PROOF.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method?

Your question makes no sense.

Philosophy is a field, not a model or claim that requires any proving or evidence...............
Models in philosophy might need evidence.
The field itself is not a model.

 

[Sunstone]

There is no puzzle there, the OP is to decipher the puzzle of life with the help of friends here and to help them in this connection.

Regards
________

View attachment 39436

Lewisnotmiller and I were joking with each other.

 

[Sunstone]

There are any number of REASONS, what there isn't, is PROOF.

True.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method?

As others have stated, no, it cannot.

However, it should be noted that even though this is the case, there is still no reason to believe that unicorns exist without a demonstration of the existence of unicorns.

 

[HonestJoe]

There are any number of REASONS, what there isn't, is PROOF.

Reasons to consider it possible maybe, not reasons to assume it is the definitive truth. That would be proof by definition though we're obviously talking about faith rather than proof in this case.

 

[ChristineM]

One makes me to use GoogleTranslate, continuously. Wikipedia takes me to the Napoleon period "impossible is not French" . Was Napoleon then talking about science or philosophy, please?

Regards

Actually 'impossible' was taken from the french (same spelling exactly) who in turn took it from the latin 'impossibilis'

What Napoleon said has nothing to do with science or philosophy but logistics. When he was told that horse feed was impossible to deliver to one fof his campaigns he said.

I received your letter of 6th July. You have 240,000 bushels of oats at Magdeburg. ‘That is impossible,’ you write to me: that is not French. I am displeased with your letter. Immediately send two boats filled with oats for the horses of the Guard, who are dying. The oats will be replaced by what is happening in the country, by the next harvest, and, finally, by what is sent by the 32nd division.​

 

[ChristineM]

I agree it neither belongs to science nor philosophy.
Science has to borrow from other natural means created by G-d for the benefit of man, not belonging to the specific domain of science of physical and material, to know "What works" and what does not work. Science is restricted and encircled by its limitations. Our truthful G-d has bound it with limitations that it cannot surpass. Right, please?

Regards

Your god belief has nothing to do with the development of the scientific method.

Science is the study of the natural within the bounds of the natural (i.e. all the physical universe) there are no restrictions. So long as results adhere to the scientific method then anything natural can be studdied.

Science does not get involved in the supernatural simply because it cannot be studied or falsified

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually 'impossible' was taken from the french (same spelling exactly) who in turn took it from the latin 'impossibilis'

What Napoleon said has nothing to do with science or philosophy but logistics. When he was told that horse feed was impossible to deliver to one fof his campaigns he said.

I received your letter of 6th July. You have 240,000 bushels of oats at Magdeburg. ‘That is impossible,’ you write to me: that is not French. I am displeased with your letter. Immediately send two boats filled with oats for the horses of the Guard, who are dying. The oats will be replaced by what is happening in the country, by the next harvest, and, finally, by what is sent by the 32nd division.​

Well, I had not intention to talk of war, the subject one has brought in this thread of peace or, is one talking of destructive weapons of war stacked in the countries who lead in science, please? "Does what works" for science is "what does not work" for the good of humans necessarily, please?
Isn't it unscientific to destroy the world, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Your god belief has nothing to do with the development of the scientific method.

Science is the study of the natural within the bounds of the natural (i.e. all the physical universe) there are no restrictions. So long as results adhere to the scientific method then anything natural can be studdied.

Science does not get involved in the supernatural simply because it cannot be studied or falsified

There is more to Universe/s than its physical aspect. For instance beauty and aesthetics. These are out of science. Right, please?

Regards