Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method

[paarsurrey]

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.

Sorry, I did not get one exactly. Please elaborate for me in easy English.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

philosophy
noun
phi·los·o·phy | \ fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē \
plural philosophies
Definition of philosophy
1a(1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
(2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theologya doctor of philosophy
(3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary
b(1)archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE
(2): ETHICS
c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2a: pursuit of wisdom
b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3a: a system of philosophical concepts
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thoughtthe philosophy of war
4a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Definition of PHILOSOPHY

They don't mention it as a field , please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

I don't assume G-d, I understand very naturally that G-d exists like I know my mother and father must exist. Right, please?

Regards

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't assume G-d, I understand very naturally that G-d exists like I know my mother and father must exist. Right, please?

Of course you don't believe in your god in the same way as you do your father and mother - what an absurd claim. If it were true, everybody would in believe your god (in the same way as their fathers and mothers), which they don't.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

"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

I was taking a guess as to the reason you raised the question in the OP. And my guess was that it was a thinly veiled attempt to paint "philosophy" (or any study of the world within which we live and the concepts surrounding) as unfounded in an objective sense, and therefore conclude that you should be free to inject whatever fantasies (aka gods) into our existence that you wish without scrutiny or push-back.

Now is the part where you tell me I am wrong and then explain exactly why you asked the question you asked in the OP. And then we shall see if we can get to the part where I actually believe you.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

G-d is self Evident. Does real evident ever need proof, please. If something needs proof, it must not be evident enough. Right,please?

Regards
___________
[57:4] ہُوَ الۡاَوَّلُ وَ الۡاٰخِرُ وَ الظَّاہِرُ وَ الۡبَاطِنُ ۚ وَ ہُوَ بِکُلِّ شَیۡءٍ عَلِیۡمٌ ﴿۴﴾
He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well.
_______________
<evident is that needs no proof>
"A fact or situation that is self-evident is so obvious that there is no need for proof or explanation. "
Self-evident definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

 

[Augustus]

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,

What has Popper got to do with it? Modern science didn't appear in the 1950s, and not all science is falsifiable. But the demarcation problem, how to differentiate between science and 'not science', is certainly philosophy. What constitutes a scientific method is philosophy.

Modern science emerged via evolutions in the field of natural philosophy though, which, as the name suggests, is a branch of philosophy.

No as cited above.

Are you saying natural philosophy wasn't philosophy, or that modern science wasn't the product of evolutions in the field of natural philosophy?

Yes it did by the historical evidence.

Such as...?

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

That's not what I said.

The social value of modern experimental science in Western Europe (where it emerged) was significantly derived from its perceived utility regarding theology as much of it was lacking in practical application at first.

This is why technologically advanced societies throughout history failed to have a scientific revolution as people did not 'waste' precious time and resources on fields that lacked practical applications.

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.

You are putting the cart before the horse. You can't even say what science is without philosophy so the very existence of science as a meaningful concept is entirely dependent on philosophy.

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Invent is the wrong word though, as it was an evolutionary process. Science didn't give birth to science, it was the product of evolving philosophical perspectives regarding the relationship between human knowledge, reason and nature in the field of natural philosophy.

 

[ratiocinator]

G-d is self Evident.

Not to me it isn't.

 

[`mud]

Ah yes....in the evidence of the absence of presence !

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

philosophy
noun
phi·los·o·phy | \ fə-ˈlä-s(ə-)fē \
plural philosophies
Definition of philosophy
1a(1): all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts
(2): the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theologya doctor of philosophy
(3): the 4-year college course of a major seminary
b(1)archaic : PHYSICAL SCIENCE
(2): ETHICS
c: a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
2a: pursuit of wisdom
b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
3a: a system of philosophical concepts
b: a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thoughtthe philosophy of war
4a: the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
b: calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher
Definition of PHILOSOPHY

They don't mention it as a field , please. Right, please?

Regards

Field, displine

Tom8to, tomato

Perhaps the terms are more nuanced in english. In dutch they are pretty much synonymous.

The term philosophy doesn't refer to a single model that might require evidence. It refers to a field / discipline.
Like the terms "biology", "physics", "chemistry" etc

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't assume G-d, I understand very naturally that G-d exists like I know my mother and father must exist. Right, please?

Wrong.

You can demonstrate the existance of your mother and father.

 

[Stevicus]

"Can the discharge of lightning, the distillation of water, and a car's gas mileage all be strummed on a banjo".

If anyone can do it, it's Flatt and Scruggs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

G-d is self Evident.

Clearly, it isn't as there is so much disagreement on it.

Does real evident ever need proof, please

If it is indeed so self-evident, then providing proof should be trivial.
How can something for wich you have no proof, be self-evident?

What do you mean by "self-evident" if you think something can be self-evident without any demonstrability whatsoever?

If something needs proof, it must not be evident enough. Right,please?

Nope.

 

[james bond]

Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method?

I was confused, too. Maybe you should ask is the scientific method a philosophy? It could be a philosophy of science.

 

[MJ Bailey]

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
___________
This thread is dedicated to friend @Israel Khan .
#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.

Theoretical Science is based from both philosophical and scientific studies. Philosophy is the "Father" of Science; ground root of science and the fore fathers of science would have never questioned anything if not for philosophical upbringings. Finding reliable and demonstrative evidence in either is challenging. There is proof of each, yet not enough to prove either right or wrong for the opposed.

 

[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.

"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 all humans have all these capabilities, please?
Aren't there human beings, yet very much they are human beings but they lack both of these capabilities or one of them,please?
How would they ascertain such scenarios, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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,

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

No as cited above.

Yes it did by the historical evidence.

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

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.

" 'what works' "

Why "what works" that works, please? Who is behind it that it works at all, please?
Isn't it G-d, please?

Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

" 'what works' "

Why "what works" that works, please? Who is behind it that it works at all, please?
Isn't it G-d, please?

Regards

'Who or what is behind it' is nore a theological/philosophical question, and not what was proposed as the subject of the thread.

 

[paarsurrey]

Theoretical Science is based from both philosophical and scientific studies. Philosophy is the "Father" of Science; ground root of science and the fore fathers of science would have never questioned anything if not for philosophical upbringings. Finding reliable and demonstrative evidence in either is challenging. There is proof of each, yet not enough to prove either right or wrong for the opposed.

"Finding reliable and demonstrative evidence in either is challenging. There is proof of each, yet not enough to prove either right or wrong for the opposed."

Please elaborate and illustrate for us.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

'Who or what is behind it' is nore a theological/philosophical question, and not what was proposed as the subject of the thread.

Yes, this question is not in the OP, please.
Since one has mentioned "what works" in many of one's posts in the thread, so please elaborate it additionally for our information, please. No compulsion, however. Right, please?

Regards