Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method

[paarsurrey]

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)!

Please elaborate and illustrate the contents one's post for us, kindly.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"until much later that it became popular to confirm ideas with nature"
"They began to accept the evidence of their eyes against what they were being taught."
"Francis Bacon"

But is nature static, please? Isn't it always changing? Have we known the nature fully?

Regards
_________
<But is nature static in Physics>

 

[shunyadragon]

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

'What works'' has been the basis for the advancement of science and technology in all cultures throughout the history of humanity, and also warfare has been a great motivation for the advancement of science and technology through human intellect. China advance the science and technology up until the Tang Dynasty, and for cultural reasons stopped.

I will add that the evolution of the brain and human intelect at problem solving is the origin of science and technology. Many species like primates, birds, elephants share these attributes in primitive forms.

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond is an interesting book into the causes of the advancement of science and technology.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Where else would it have come from?

I already addressed this read my posts. I will add that the evolution of the brain and human intelect at problem solving is the origin of science and technology. Many species like primates, birds, elephants share these attributes in primitive forms.

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.

Your source confirmed my previous statement: Philosophy influenced science, and did not invent science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

I don't think that is quite correct. I think that the OP, like all of your posts, is about trying to prove that we cannot trust the answers given by science or philosophy (or most other means by which humans gain knowledge), and therefore we should just rely on scripture/religion as absolute truth.

The problem with that is very simply this. Demonstrating that you can't get all your answers from source A, or from source B, doesn't mean that you can get them all from source C -- or even that source C has any claim to having more correct answers than the other 2.

Your problem is that you refuse to simply look at your religious beliefs, and ask the very same questions that you repeatedly ask about everything else: "how do I know (emphasis on the epistemic sense of the word "know") that it is true?"

Until you do that, I have little interest in engaging with you.

 

[Milton Platt]

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.

Nonsensical question.

 

[paarsurrey]

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

There is no confusion. Science has, I understand, its limitations it works within, it is not designed for many aspects of human life that are out of its limitations. Right, please?

Regards
_____________
"BY WILLIAM HARRIS
Limitations of the Scientific Method
Clearly, the scientific method is a powerful tool, but it does have its limitations. These limitations are based on the fact that a hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable and that experiments and observations be repeatable. This places certain topics beyond the reach of the scientific method. Science cannot prove or refute the existence of God or any other supernatural entity. Sometimes, scientific principles are used to try to lend credibility to certain nonscientific ideas, such as intelligent design. Intelligent design is the assertion that certain aspects of the origin of the universe and life can be explained only in the context of an intelligent, divine power. Proponents of intelligent design try to pass this concept off as a scientific theory to make it more palatable to developers of public school curriculums. But intelligent design is not science because the existence of a divine being cannot be tested with an experiment.
Science is also incapable of making value judgments. It cannot say global warming is bad, for example. It can study the causes and effects of global warming and report on those results, but it cannot assert that driving SUVs is wrong or that people who haven't replaced their regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs are irresponsible. Occasionally, certain organizations use scientific data to advance their causes. This blurs the line between science and morality and encourages the creation of "pseudo-science," which tries to legitimize a product or idea with a claim that has not been subjected to rigorous testing.
And yet, used properly, the scientific method is one of the most valuable tools humans have ever created. It helps us solve everyday problems around the house and, at the same time, helps us understand profound questions about the world and universe in which we live."
How the Scientific Method Works

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

No, philosophy cannot be proven. They are not formulas, that you can put numbers in the formula, and prove it is true. For example, science says, water is, H2O. You can prove it, in a Lab. Mix Hydrogen and Oxigen according to the equation, and there you have proved it. Now, philosophy is a different thing.

Take for example some the sayings of philosophers, such as these:

1. To go to the world below, having a soul which is like a vessel full of injustice, is the last and worst of all the evils. Plato
2. There was never a genius without a tincture of madness.
   Aristotle
3. Friendship is essentially a partnership
4. The best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class.
   Aristotle
   

How are you going to prove any of these to anyone?

 

[Augustus]

I will add that the evolution of the brain and human intelect at problem solving is the origin of science and technology. Many species like primates, birds, elephants share these attributes in primitive forms.

Use of tools and practical technologies is natural and evolves from stochastic tinkering with our environment (hence some animals use tools). The social, ideological and philosophical foundations of modern science are not.

Philosophy influenced science, and did not invent science.

So natural philosophy isn't philosophy or modern science didn't evolve from natural philosophy?

 

[shunyadragon]

Use of tools and practical technologies is natural and evolves from stochastic tinkering with our environment (hence some animals use tools). The social, ideological and philosophical foundations of modern science are not.

It is here we disagree. I believe the development of science and technology is simply the natural evolution of the 'What works' application of the problem solving for the benefit and advantage over time. Philosophy doe not 'invent science.

So natural philosophy isn't philosophy or modern science didn't evolve from natural philosophy?

I did not bring up 'Natural Philosophy at present. The natural evolution of the application of human problem solving intellect as a basis for science should not be equated with 'Natural Philosophy,' s.because of it's diverse implication

Natural philosophy is not causal, nor the inventor of science.. It is a way of 'thinking' about nature, and evolved with science. As science advanced, natural philosophy had to change concerning how we 'think' about science. In fact 'Natural Philosophy' as it evolved early had strong Theistic assumptions, and old cosmological assumptions based on Theism, and old Greek cosmologies, which had to dropped as science evolved in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the present view proposed by Popper.

 

[robocop (actually)]

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.

No. Philosophies are not required to be proven by the scientific method. There merit is how they explain.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Please elaborate and illustrate the contents one's post for us, kindly.

Regards

Philosophy - people who love drinking wine will never grow rich. Test - sample 300 rich people for their wine fealty.

Philosophy - God made five Earths in five different universes. Test - ?

 

[Augustus]

It is here we disagree. I believe the development of science and technology is simply the natural evolution of the 'What works' application of the problem solving for the benefit and advantage over time. Philosophy doe not 'invent science.

You keep on conflating modern science and technology when they are significantly different things.

Technologies are ubiquitous in human society and rely on no preconditions, modern science developed in a particular time and place and was dependent on the existence of certain philosophical preconditions.

Technologies have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, modern science for 3-400 (despite the fact that there was nothing stopping it from being 'invented' millennia ago.

This is pretty strong evidence that it is not 'natural' and intuitive otherwise it would have existed far earlier and in far more places.

I did not bring up 'Natural Philosophy at present. The natural evolution of the application of human problem solving intellect as a basis for science should not be equated with 'Natural Philosophy,' s.because of it's diverse implication

Natural philosophy is not causal, nor the inventor of science.. It is a way of 'thinking' about nature, and evolved with science. As science advanced, natural philosophy had to change concerning how we 'think' about science. In fact 'Natural Philosophy' as it evolved early had strong Theistic assumptions, and old cosmological assumptions based on Theism, and old Greek cosmologies, which had to dropped as science evolved in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the present view proposed by Popper.

What we now call science didn't exist prior to the early modern period, and when it appeared it was as an evolution in the field of natural philosophy. These are simply historical facts.

The idea that "as science advanced natural philosophy had to change" is ahistorical as science didn't exist until after certain schools of natural philosophy had already made that change and evolved into what we now call science.

You have a continuum from ancient times up to the present and it is a common misconception that during the Enlightenment there was a sudden rejection of the old to be replaced with a brave new world radically different form the past. In reality it was a gradual evolution in a field that had been going on for centuries.

Historian of science, Peter Harrison:

The revolution which gave rise to [modern science] was not the result of new facts or observations, nor of the discarding of irrelevant and extraneous material, but of a change to the mental field in which generally accepted facts were located...

i.e. it was a change in the philosophical underpinnings of the investigation of nature. Science is a collection of methodologies based on certain philosophical axioms and it is these that give birth to science. The key evolution was the idea that true knowledge could only be gained through experimentation rather than reasoning about nature, and this evolution was in the field of natural philosophy.

How do you propose science existing absent its philosophical underpinnings?

 

[shunyadragon]

You keep on conflating modern science and technology when they are significantly different things.

No, I do not. I just consider science a progressive

Technologies are ubiquitous in human society and rely on no preconditions, modern science developed in a particular time and place and was dependent on the existence of certain philosophical preconditions.

I see absolutely no philosophical preconditions. In tact I see philosophy changing in response to scientific discoveries, ie cosmology.

Technologies have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, modern science for 3-400 (despite the fact that there was nothing stopping it from being 'invented' millennia ago.

Nothing stopping anything, because scientific advances developed naturally over history. Science and technologies form a continuum of what works in history. Philosophy evolved in response to changes in science and technology. Scientific advanced did develop independently and parallel in China as in the west before the Tang Dynasty.

This is pretty strong evidence that it is not 'natural' and intuitive otherwise it would have existed far earlier and in far more places.

As far as I am concerned absolutely none.

What we now call science didn't exist prior to the early modern period, and when it appeared it was as an evolution in the field of natural philosophy. These are simply historical facts.

There are no simple facts that can make an accurate delineation between any point in history concerning science and technology. I describe it as a continuum, and you do not. You artificially separate them out. Philosophy evolved As usual we disagree strongly. Again philosophy evolved in response to changes in science.

The idea that "as science advanced natural philosophy had to change" is ahistorical as science didn't exist until after certain schools of natural philosophy had already made that change and evolved into what we now call science.

You have a continuum from ancient times up to the present and it is a common misconception that during the Enlightenment there was a sudden rejection of the old to be replaced with a brave new world radically different form the past. In reality it was a gradual evolution in a field that had been going on for centuries.

Historian of science, Peter Harrison:

The revolution which gave rise to [modern science] was not the result of new facts or observations, nor of the discarding of irrelevant and extraneous material, but of a change to the mental field in which generally accepted facts were located...

i.e. it was a change in the philosophical underpinnings of the investigation of nature. Science is a collection of methodologies based on certain philosophical axioms and it is these that give birth to science. The key evolution was the idea that true knowledge could only be gained through experimentation rather than reasoning about nature, and this evolution was in the field of natural philosophy.

How do you propose science existing absent its philosophical underpinnings?

What you call philosophical underpinnings came in response to changes and advances in science. As an example your reference to 'Natural Philosophy' reflected in the past science ancient non-scientific views and did not change until it was forced to change by advances in. Today many chruchs cling to ancient views of 'Natural Philosophy and refuse to change despite the evidence.

Give up the ghost as usual we are not going to agree.

What you have failed to provide is specific advances in philosophy preceed and guide scientific advances. The only example I believe fits the case is based on practical not philosophical considerations is the natural development of the scientific methodology over time in the ancient world including Islam. Though, I can cite Baha'i scripture where this is true.

 

[Segev Moran]

Can philosophy be proved by the scientific method?

Kind of...
It depends on which philosophy.

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

Actually... no.
An example of this can be a claim of any religion that is not a "not" claim.
By this i mean, that we cannot prove absense.
This mean we cannot prove there is no God the same as we cannot prove there is one.
But concepts like Doing this, will improve that can be measured and proven.

If for example someone claims he can cure people with his touch, this can easily proven false (or true )
A claim that a specific behavior will be beneficial for your life can also be easily measured and proven using history.
That way for example, we know for a fact that Hilter's manifesto regarding equality of people is factually wrong and can be proven as false.

Regards

You too

"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.

He is right.
The scientific method really is a philosophy, stating that the best way for us to evolve as a specie and thrive is using technological and educational development.
This means that we only accept truth for things we can back up with measured results.
Surprisingly, many spiritual concepts were proven to be very efficient and successful, those ideas became "social philosophies" and not treated as spiritual anymore (for example medical plants, social contribution, forgiveness etc).
Cheers

 

[Augustus]

I see absolutely no philosophical preconditions.

Which is probably the cause of your misunderstanding.

Not sure why some people seem to think it is some kind of a problem to note that science is underpinned by numerous philosophical assumptions as if it were some kind of weakness rather than an unavoidable aspect of human cognition.

Do you believe views on epistemology are irrelevant to science for example?

Scientific advanced did develop independently and parallel in China as in the west before the Tang Dynasty.

Modern science emerged in Western Europe in the 17th C. Calling everything that came before 'science' then lumping it in with technology and what animals do, etc. is why you don't see the role of natural philosophy in the development of modern science, or that it relied on philosophical preconditions relating the the nature of reality, the nature of cognition, the desirability and attainability of knowledge, etc.

The Ancient Greeks, for example, believed in the power of reason to determine truth absent empirical experimentation, other societies have considered the universe to be unintelligible as it is chaotic. When you deny the role of philosophy you argue that such societies were equally likely to develop modern science as 17th C Europeans. Science is not a 'neutral' activity but one which assumes many things axiomatically.

China was technologically advanced but did not have a scientific revolution because it only saw value in technologies with practical benefit. This is the natural human tendency to develop technologies and something that is not unique to humans.

The scientific revolution required value to be placed in the search for knowledge without practical benefit though. Experimental natural philosophy (i.e. what we now consider to be science) was mocked by many people when it first emerged precisely because it had no practical benefit. It was seen as some ivory tower intellectual hand-waving exercise. The land of Laputa in Gulliver's travels (written in the early 18th C) is a satire on exactly this point.

What you call philosophical underpinnings came in response to changes and advances in science.

The problem with this line of argumentation is that what we now call science didn't exist. The field was natural philosophy.

Newton, for example, was a natural philosopher and trying to retroactively separate his natural philosophy from his science is an anachronistic and artificial attempt to distort history. Even the term scientist only appeared in the 18th C.

What you have failed to provide is specific advances in philosophy preceed and guide scientific advances.

To repeat: "The key evolution was the idea that true knowledge could only be gained through experimentation rather than reasoning about nature, and this evolution was in the field of natural philosophy."

Are you saying this was irrelevant to the development of modern science or that this is nothing to do with philosophy?

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Both of which are aspects of the natural universe.

But science has got nothing to do with it, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[ChristineM]

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

But science has got nothing to do with it, please? Right, please?

Regards

Beauty and aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder, an emotion felt when sensing an object. In themselves they have no scientific value as physical or natural.

However, If you would consider psychology a science then the study of a person's emotional feeling to an object can be considered science.

So yes beauty and aesthetics can have scientific involvement

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Strictly speaking, the scientific method doesn't ever prove anything to be true.
It can prove a claim to be false. If the claim survives repeated attempts to
falsify it, then it's considered "useful". If an aspect of philosophy is amenable
to being tested, then it too could prove useful. But if not amenable to testing,
then it's possibly "not even wrong".