Are there questions that science can't answer but...

[FaithlessThinker]

... philosophy can? I stumbled upon this video while I was looking for something else, and it got me thinking. Take a look:

​

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Plenty. Science deals with physical evidence; there's a lot of things you can't directly collect evidence for. The effect of beliefs on behavior, for example. The lasting consequences of historical events. Theory of the functions of the mind.

 

[Unwardil]

Well but even more than that.

Say some day in the future, science manages to isolate specific thought patterns in the brain and these thought patterns can not only account for every thought you have, but can be manipulated perfectly with a combination of drugs and genetic re sequencing (Using manufactured retroviruses to change your actual DNA).

Philosophy will still be needed to say whether or not people's minds should be manipulated at all, or under what circumstances like say, in the case of violent criminals.

Incidentally, we're not too far from being able to do what I described.

 

[MetalMeltdown]

An easy example comes to mind:
How can we tell science from non science (demarcation problem) ?
Science cannot answer that. Philosophy answers it on the meta-level.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm not sure a lot of those "questions" are valid or meaningful? There's something about philosophy majors that I just don't trust. :lol:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I find it particularly anoying the phylosophers prespective of science, almost like a dentist giving tips on how to fix the international space station.
Because you do need a bit of experience to know what happens in science and we do our work.
I on the other hand can see the value there is to find in phylosophy, from such humble begginings which spread forth amazing field of knowledge like Logic, math and science. But having said it is non the less true that phylosophy as sort of lost its footing and seam to have only been good when, logic, math and science were a part of it and the things that are left which are still good can easilly be picked up by anyone.
Even though phylosophy has influenced great thinkers, I can hardly point to any sort of contribution that has significativelly impacted the modern world that has ever comeout of phylosophy in the last 10 centuries. And in the modern world I can hardly think of a job other than a professor or a book writer that a phylosopher could do, from where does a company made out of phylosophers get its income from?
Plus phylosophic skills aren't really unique, they can hold on toa big train of taught but I don't see a major issue in society that a graduated phylosopher could solve that any other smart person couldn't.
Everything is very good when we talk about things, but the main issue is, can they really do it?

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Yea. I wonder what a major in philosophy would entail in the career market. Other than being a professor and a writer.

 

[lrkun]

Based on the definition of science which contemplates knowledge gathered through the scientific method of which deals with empiracal or observable data; it cannot answer anything outside the set of empirical experiments.

From the above, one can infer that anything within the set; science can answer.

-noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

[1]

---

1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

 

[AdmiralPeacock]

... philosophy can? I stumbled upon this video while I was looking for something else, and it got me thinking. Take a look:

​

A more interesting question is... do post-modern philosophy majors come of a production line or what?

Here you have tooltime


Professoranton



TheCarruths



They talk the same particularly tooltime and Profanton. I reckon they're actually robots, trying to lead us down the path to the dark side.

 

[Deleted member 499]

A more interesting question is... do post-modern philosophy majors come of a production line or what?

Possibly, although in some cases I think they put that voice on when they're trying to put a point across. Professoranton drops it right at the end of his video. Another thing I've noticed is that philosophers are very good at talking utter bollocks, or at least making points in such a convoluted and non committal way that they may as well have said nothing.

As far as the original question in the thread goes. I don't think so. The biggest fruits of philosophy seem to be in the processes of thought itself, as much as I dislike the patronising way in which some philosophers tend to speak to non philosophers, ultimately the system is responsible for concepts like logic, without which you don't have science. So I would argue that philosophy doesn't answer the questions but it does lay the groundwork for questions to be approached.

Or am I talking utter crap?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

You are not talking carp, philosophy is indeed important to lay so ground work on how we think, but it can only go so far.

 

[FaithlessThinker]

Does science consider death a "problem to be solved" rather than a mere "fact of life"? Professoranton was saying something along the lines...

And "THAT THIS IS" sounds very familiar to the christian "I AM". I can't understand how three words he put together is suddenly "evidence for the divine" LOL such bullshit...

TheCarruths.. what's the point he's trying to make? I just can't make sense of what he says.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

TheCarruths.. what's the point he's trying to make? I just can't make sense of what he says.

He meandered around a lot to make the point that almost all religious thought is based around human interactions, and laying a framework for what we should and shouldn't do. Basically all religion is human-centric hence if god exists he/she/it is a humanist.

 

[Ad Initium]

I think from a fact finding standpoint the following questions share similarities:

- Why does the world work?
- How does the world work?
- Should the world work this way?
- Does the world work this way?

But there is a slight difference between them and there is where philosophy steps in. Where science provides evidence and facts, phylosophy tells us how to use it. There is no good and bad in physolophy.

The 4 questions above all are basically trying to do the same thing, but the starting position from which the questions were posed will be slighty different and so will the outcome, the result. Phylosophy is the means to zift through it all and try find some cohesion and sence in it. It will try to clear up the starting position, analyse the process and wonder about the result.

We do need phylosophy and I can give a good example.

Now ... go to this website: http://www.sonshi.com

It discusses Sun Tzu's, The Art of War. And it is really amazing how different uses, just a few of the sentences in the AoW can have. Besides warfare, people discuss politics, human relations in all it's kind's and personal goals, from this one "simple" old text, and much more.

It was originally just meant, as some text on how to conduct warfare, but the text has been valued so much over millenia, it is still one of the most used old text around. It predate's the Bible even. If it was not for phylosophy, this text may have been scrapped a long time ago.

Phylosophy is just a way to learn about ourselves and how to look at the world around us. It is of great value as a tool to improve ourselves and humanity. Though it probably did have it's misuses in the past too.

MHO, ofc.

Even Ghenghis Khan (my idol/hero) knew of this text, though that was after he already united the Tribes.

 

[obsidianavenger]

actually in my experience scientists have a lot more problems with philosophy than the other way around. even very good scientists will sometimes seem to hold to some naive positivism, whereas most good philosophers have some clue about what science is (and isn't) even if they aren't all that versed in all the details. sam harris would be a good example of this, claiming to reduce morality to neuroscience.... lol.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

actually in my experience scientists have a lot more problems with philosophy than the other way around. even very good scientists will sometimes seem to hold to some naive positivism, whereas most good philosophers have some clue about what science is (and isn't) even if they aren't all that versed in all the details. sam harris would be a good example of this, claiming to reduce morality to neuroscience.... lol.

I fundamentaly disagree. But unfortunatly I don't know how to clearly demonstrate and any discution about this will result in one trying to deny the other and we wouldhave to agree to disagree, so before that conversation can take place, I am ending it. So carry on

 

[creativesoul]

One thing science cannot do. Separate itself from philosophy. The reason being that philosophy gave rise to it. How, you may ask?

The analysis of methodology. Science cannot do that!

 

[TheJilvin]

I believe that science rose due to the slow accumulation of confidence in a strict method that eventually came to be considered an unrivaled way of predicting valid data output from the physical world. Although, the prediction aspect is what defines a scientific idea as good, so one could accurately claim that the advent was science was the realization that "truer" (whatever that means) theories are theories that have predictive power. This sort of idea is something that could, in principle, come under scrutiny in philosophy (for example, via the assertion that revelation is also a valid way of collecting true data about the world).

Thus, I view science as a particular form of philosophy.

 

[lrkun]

I believe that science rose due to the slow accumulation of confidence in a strict method that eventually came to be considered an unrivaled way of predicting valid data output from the physical world. Although, the prediction aspect is what defines a scientific idea as good, so one could accurately claim that the advent was science was the realization that "truer" (whatever that means) theories are theories that have predictive power. This sort of idea is something that could, in principle, come under scrutiny in philosophy (for example, via the assertion that revelation is also a valid way of collecting true data about the world).

Thus, I view science as a particular form of philosophy.

So are there questions that science can't answer but?

 

[LogosSteve]

It's very easy for people to fall into answering these kinds of questions without understanding why people even ask these kinds of questions which doesn't get us anywhere. Let's start with the short answer to your question.

Are there questions that science can't answer but philosophy can? No!

Philosophy can't actually correctly answer any questions that science doesn't currently answer (or will be able to answer eventually). Philosophy is merely the art before neuroscience. You have it backwards, science answers every question philosophy could ever have. Let me explain what that really means.

Philosophy is the pursuit of high-concept knowledge (questions of meaning, values, etc.) without being able to break it down into testable, concrete, empirical data (science). Brains work with concepts. The nature of consciousness begs us to ask these big questions like "what does it all mean." We want to be able to pursue the answer even if we're not able to completely ground our position in empirical, verifiable evidence. Yes philosophy is inextricably tied with science because of the use of argument but it's still merely there to satisfy humanity's thirst for the answers to loaded questions that pre-supposes that everything can be explained in a way that neatly correlates with how data is stored in the human mind. It fascinates me how people think the mental concepts we invent in our heads somehow answer real world questions better than science or aren't explainable by science.

Yes, Sam Harris is effin right when he says neuroscience can explain morality, or at least why we think about morality the way we do. Heck, in the second post of this topic ArthurWilborn claimed that science can't measure

The effect of beliefs on behavior, for example. The lasting consequences of historical events.

BS, science can answer that! We do it everyday, it's called behavioral psychology.

Irkun says science:

cannot answer anything outside the set of empirical experiments

Well who says all the thoughts and neurons and feelings in your head aren't empirical data?

Philosophy is a good tool for having conversations about concepts without making people understand what they're talking about with objective data. Nothing more and nothing less.