Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method

[ChristineM]

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

You raised the subject of Napoleon. Don't dump it on me because you don't like the answers to your posts.


Yes very unscientific but it can be seen as a religious trait

 

[ChristineM]

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

Regards

Both of which are aspects of the natural universe.

 

[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

I understand G-d very naturally, and this aspect is also out of science. Which discipline of science took it up. It, I understand, very loudly speaks of the limitations of science- created by G-d for the benefit of humans and is a blessing evolved naturally by G-d. Right, please?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

I understand G-d very naturally, and this aspect is also out of science. Which discipline of science took it up. It, I understand, very loudly speaks of the limitations of science- created by G-d for the benefit of humans and is a blessing evolved naturally by G-d. Right, please?

Regards

That's your understanding although i don't thing anyone can honestly say they understand their god

And putting limitations on science because you 'think' your god imposed them is about as egotistical as i have ever seen.

There is evidence of science, hell you even use it to post your disrespect and misrepresentation of science. There is no evidence of god... none. What you have is faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"unicorns"

Unicorns, flying tea-pot, elephant and big-foot in one's garage, I understand, are not mentioned in the OP,friend. So, its proof or no-proof is on one, please.

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

"unicorns"

Unicorns, flying tea-pot, elephant and big-foot in one's garage, I understand, are not mentioned in the OP,friend. So, its proof or no-proof is on one, please.

Regards

There was no mention of Napoleon in the op but that didn't stop you citing him

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"As others have stated, no, it cannot."

So one agrees that science cannot prove philosophy and philosophy is the grandmother of science while mathematics is its mother .

Thanks and regards

 

[ChristineM]

"As others have stated, no, it cannot."
So one agrees that science cannot prove philosophy and philosophy is the grandmother of science while mathematics is its mother .

Thanks and regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"No philosophical proposition can be proven by science."
"Science is not a system for establishing conceptual proofs."
"within a limited physical context"

Thanks and regards for the above expressions, please

Can it (science) prove an idea or an ideology, please?

Regards

 

[Sunstone]

Some posts are -- at once -- so manipulative, disingenuous, and childish that reading them rattles my faith in humanity. Not yours, of course.

 

[ChristineM]

Some posts are -- at once -- so manipulative, disingenuous, and childish that reading them rattles my faith in humanity. Not yours, of course.

I see people attempting to manipulate another posters comment often enough. Sometimes even blatantly. But this us on a whole new level.

 

[shunyadragon]

"What works"

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

Regards

I disagree. Please clarify what you mean by 'other natural means.' Simply natural means are the realm of science. There are no others.

 

[shunyadragon]

"'Philosophy of Science'"

If philosophy did not invent science then, why qualify science with philosophy, please?

Regards

What I discribed is not 'qualifying science.'

 

[Jedster]

Some posts are -- at once -- so manipulative, disingenuous, and childish that reading them rattles my faith in humanity. Not yours, of course.

I see people attempting to manipulate another posters comment often enough. Sometimes even blatantly. But this us on a whole new level.

I really admire you both for your patience.
There should be a patience frubal.

 

[Augustus]

The Scientific Method is not an invention of philosophy.

What constitutes a legitimate scientific method is certainly an 'invention' of philosophy.

Where else would it have come from?

Science actually evolved from empirical problem solving methods to find out 'what works' for human utility purposes and benefits.

Modern science evolved from a particular developments within the field of natural philosophy in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period especially those that involved the limitations of human knowledge and rationality which created a reason to pursue an experimental method (which differed from the philosophical approach taken by, say, the Ancient Greeks).

This was very much a philosophical development.

It didn't evolve from "empirical problem solving methods to find out 'what works' for human utility purposes and benefits" and was, at first, frequently seen as quite useless as it lacked practical applications.

At first, it mainly gained a societal legitimacy as it was seen as being theologically useful, not because it was highly successful in solving real-world practical problems.

We look at it with the benefit of hindsight and assume what we know and think today was self-evident back then: it was not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Philosophy is the dreaming of possibilities
Science is the proving of them

Science does not prove anything fortunately.

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I agree that science is very beneficial for humans and I like it, but it is simply a tool of investigation in the things material and physical, I don't worship it.
It has limitations some of them one has mentioned in one's post. Human observation is faulty, one could describe a phenomenon as an observation while it is just an illusion.So could be science out of its domain. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Regards

Ok. Philosophy is formal thinking but without no confirmation that the forms will coincide with nature. That was considered a very important point during the development of Greek philosophy. It was about using your mind, and it was not until much later that it became popular to confirm ideas with nature. In western schools this became known as 'Natural philosophy', and this was a rebellion against the former schools of philosophy and separate from them although borrowing some of their tools. A famous European man is credited with getting Europeans and (later the entire world) to accept this. His name is Francis Bacon. He steps away from the rigid requirement to keep philosophy separate from the physical. After him there is a cascade of others who find that his ideas are agreeable, and this changes everything. People began to accept the various tools of natural discovery that had lain dormant and which had been suppressed in Europe for many centuries. They began to accept the evidence of their eyes against what they were being taught.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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
___________
#355 paarsurrey
"Scientific Method" is the invention of philosophy not of science to start with and many aspects of philosophy cannot be proved/evidenced reliable by the scientific method.

Some, not all. I can philosophize re: human behavior and run some tests, other philosophies are unavailable to testing (but are available to Bible study, logic and metaphysical tests)!

 

[shunyadragon]

What constitutes a legitimate scientific method is certainly an 'invention' of philosophy.

No, the Philosophy of Science and scientific method was not invented by philosophy. Popper only developed the way falsification of theories and hypothesis to interpret the degree of certainty in the scientific methods,

Where else would it have come from?

The methods themselves evolved over time as 'what works' and gives results for the practical benefits of understanding the nature of our physical existence.

Modern science evolved from a particular developments within the field of natural philosophy in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period especially those that involved the limitations of human knowledge and rationality which created a reason to pursue an experimental method (which differed from the philosophical approach taken by, say, the Ancient Greeks).

This was very much a philosophical development.

No as cited above.

It didn't evolve from "empirical problem solving methods to find out 'what works' for human utility purposes and benefits" and was, at first, frequently seen as quite useless as it lacked practical applications.

Yes it did by the historical evidence.

At first, it mainly gained a societal legitimacy as it was seen as being theologically useful, not because it was highly successful in solving real-world practical problems.

What is theologically useful has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of science and scientific methods.

We look at it with the benefit of hindsight and assume what we know and think today was self-evident back then: it was not.

No, we look at the benefit as to what works for the practical benefit of humanity.

It is obvious, as usual we will disagree at the fundamental basis. I believe @paarsurrey and you are putting the cart before the horse. Yes Philosophy influences science, but does not invent science.