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

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

@LogosSteve
You would think so but it isn't. Iti a it narow minded to say that there is no knowledge outside science, I supouse you may think that all the knowledge we curretly have about the world has arrived by science, but that is simply not the case. The scientific method itself has come out of philosophy, you may have no doubt that it works, but "why should it work" it is not a question that can be answered by science. Math is not science but it is another branch of philosophy, and so is logic. Even forgeting the previous fields, even tough I may allow that Ethics can become in the future intertwined in science, today it is class of philosophy.
This discution that we are having in order to see if philosophy has any merit or not, it is not science, it is philosophy.
You just can't get rid of it.

 

[kenandkids]

@LogosSteve
You would think so but it isn't. Iti a it narow minded to say that there is no knowledge outside science, I supouse you may think that all the knowledge we curretly have about the world has arrived by science, but that is simply not the case. The scientific method itself has come out of philosophy, you may have no doubt that it works, but "why should it work" it is not a question that can be answered by science. Math is not science but it is another branch of philosophy, and so is logic. Even forgeting the previous fields, even tough I may allow that Ethics can become in the future intertwined in science, today it is class of philosophy.
This discution that we are having in order to see if philosophy has any merit or not, it is not science, it is philosophy.
You just can't get rid of it.

I hear often, mostly from philosophers, that science is or was a branch of philosophy. I disagree. Children and animals often use a form of the scientific method to test the world around them and then act on the knowledge. No philosophy required. If you want to make the case that the current,standardised FORM of the scientific method is philosophy based, that is one thing. But long before complex philosophical thought developed, we still used a basic form for survival.

 

[LogosSteve]

Props kenandkids.

@ Master_Ghost_Knight
Ah yes, so it would seem. Like I said, people think in concepts so yes you're technically right, we can't get away from it, but that's only because we don't have the information in science to yet deal with these questions of thought. Hence the reason that this discussion itself is basically "philosophy" but eventually it will be science. Eventually we'll be able to have AIs after all right? Won't that require all of our conceptual thought to be a very mathmatical collection of 0s and 1s?

We seem to have some confusion with the use of the word philosophy here. I was only answering the question with the given that for the answer I should use the word philosophy in the same manner as is was used in the question. I'm not saying that all we know comes from "science" but that we can go back and say we figured things out through, essentially, scientific means. Yes science, logic, math, all arise from philosophy but that's only because you can use the word philosophy interchangeably with conceptual thought which was a recognized concept beforehand. It's very similar to saying we only have music because of religion. It's a loaded statement that doesn't quite separate the concepts into their finer, distinctive elements and that's unfortunately how we think. Sure the conceptual idea of one pre-dated and inspired the more narrow, related concept of the other but does that really mean that we need the first to justify the second? Is all music religious now? Of course not. That was just an initial driving force behind it. The important thing to realize here is that just using conceptual thought doesn't give us any right answers unless they're grounded in something objective. You say science can never answer "why does it work this way" but can philosophy? Nope, not at all. Will science be able to? Eventually. You might as well replace the word philosophy with religion since you're merely arguing for the recognition of a more brain-friendly idea that takes advantage of how we think having pre-dated and influenced the science which actually gives us concrete answers. We have science to explain whys, just not completely, but of course that's what the advancement of science has always been working towards. As Thunderf00t would say science has given us all the things we have today... what has non-scientific philosophizing given us?

I want to be clear. Philosophy is the art of today what will be the science of tomorrow. The science of conceptual thought is still young, but why would you say we won't eventually be able to describe it scientifically?

 

[creativesoul]

kenan:


I hear often, mostly from philosophers, that science is or was a branch of philosophy. I disagree.

:roll:

That is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion my friend. One may be entitled to their own opinions, but one is not entitled to their own facts. The 'Scientific Method' lands squarely in the domain of philosophy - not science. Philosophy is the only discipline that deals with the analysis of methodology. You do realize that every academic scientific degree with the prefix Phd, stands for don't you?

That'd be a doctorate of philosophy!

 

[creativesoul]

The science of conceptual thought is still young, but why would you say we won't eventually be able to describe it scientifically?

Thought precedes chemical reaction/production. Think about that!

 

[Commander Eagle]

Thought precedes chemical reaction/production.

No.

 

[kenandkids]

That is a matter of fact, not a matter of opinion my friend. One may be entitled to their own opinions, but one is not entitled to their own facts. The 'Scientific Method' lands squarely in the domain of philosophy - not science. Philosophy is the only discipline that deals with the analysis of methodology. You do realize that every academic scientific degree with the prefix Phd, stands for don't you?

That'd be a doctorate of philosophy!

Removing the relevant portion of my statement won't make you any more correct either.

I said: "If you want to make the case that the current,standardised FORM of the scientific method is philosophy based, that is one thing. But long before complex philosophical thought developed, we still used a basic form for survival."

In response to an assertion that math and science are only branches of philosophy. If this were true then only a few long-winded individuals would be capable of learning from experimentation. As it is, a great number of animals and even small children effectively use the scientific method, without the benefit of an education that teaches word count to be more important than concept.

And... OMG! Something was named something so it must be true!!

 

[kenandkids]

Thought precedes chemical reaction/production. Think about that!

Hundreds of millions of chemical reactions are occurring around you right at this very moment, almost exclusively among elements and compounds incapable of thought. Think about that.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Removing the relevant portion of my statement won't make you any more correct either.

I said: "If you want to make the case that the current,standardised FORM of the scientific method is philosophy based, that is one thing. But long before complex philosophical thought developed, we still used a basic form for survival."

In response to an assertion that math and science are only branches of philosophy. If this were true then only a few long-winded individuals would be capable of learning from experimentation. As it is, a great number of animals and even small children effectively use the scientific method, without the benefit of an education that teaches word count to be more important than concept.

And... OMG! Something was named something so it must be true!!

Well, actually, creativesoul is kind of correct here. Not entirely correct, mind you, but at least partially correct nonetheless.

The scientific method is philosophy. So are logic and mathematics and any number of other things. Where many people go wrong - as I suspect that creativesoul has (due to his/her "Ph.D." bit) and it seems that you have, as well - is in assuming that philosophy must be incredibly abstract, complicated, and over-wordy.

Philosophy is, at its core, simply an attempt to make sense of the world. All the different philosophical systems deal with different aspects of reality. Idealism and materialism, for example, are both attempts to model the "true" nature of reality. Ethical systems are attempts to define which action is "best" in a given situation. And methodological naturalism - better known as science - is a method of examining how reality behaves (or seems to behave, depending on what other philosophical stances you take).

Philosophy isn't all abstract pseudo-nonsense dealing with whether or not we live in the Matrix. That's just how most people think of it, since most people haven't been exposed to it - or don't realize that they have, anyway. Science is philosophy. It's just a branch of philosophy which gets demonstrable, provable, repeatable results which can be stated in plain English. Most of the other branches don't, and so science has been gradually separated from philosophy in the minds of the public. The same goes for logic and mathematics.

Why is this? Well, when most people think of philosophy, they think of Kant or some other such man rambling on about what is ethical. They assume that all philosophy is like that: rambling speeches bordering on nonsense that can never get any real results. They assume that anything which is simple and easy to solve must not be philosophy. This isn't the case.

 

[creativesoul]

Lemme clarify my earlier claim commander...

Thought precedes the chemical reactions that are caused by the influx/autonomous production of the chemicals which neuroscience has determined cause certain states of mind... dopamine, seratonin, and the like... That can be scientifically verified if you like, and I'll look it up if need be.

The point is that those chemical cocktails are not a 'fingerprint'(for lack of a better word) for any specific thought content.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Lemme clarify my earlier claim commander...

Thought precedes the chemical reactions that are caused by the influx/autonomous production of the chemicals which neuroscience has determined casue certain states of mind... dopamine, seratonin, and the like... That can be scientifically verified if you like, and I'll look it up if need be.

Please do. I'm not entirely certain that I think I understand what you're saying. Seeing what it is that you're referring to would help.

 

[kenandkids]

The scientific method is philosophy. So are logic and mathematics and any number of other things. Where many people go wrong - as I suspect that creativesoul has (due to his/her "Ph.D." bit) and it seems that you have, as well - is in assuming that philosophy must be incredibly abstract, complicated, and over-wordy.

Philosophy is, at its core, simply an attempt to make sense of the world. All the different philosophical systems deal with different aspects of reality. Idealism and materialism, for example, are both attempts to model the "true" nature of reality. Ethical systems are attempts to define which action is "best" in a given situation. And methodological naturalism - better known as science - is a method of examining how reality behaves (or seems to behave, depending on what other philosophical stances you take).

Philosophy isn't all abstract pseudo-nonsense dealing with whether or not we live in the Matrix. That's just how most people think of it, since most people haven't been exposed to it - or don't realize that they have, anyway. Science is philosophy. It's just a branch of philosophy which gets demonstrable, provable, repeatable results which can be stated in plain English. Most of the other branches don't, and so science has been gradually separated from philosophy in the minds of the public. The same goes for logic and mathematics.

Why is this? Well, when most people think of philosophy, they think of Kant or some other such man rambling on about what is ethical. They assume that all philosophy is like that: rambling speeches bordering on nonsense that can never get any real results. They assume that anything which is simple and easy to solve must not be philosophy. This isn't the case.

I'm actually pretty well versed in philosophy. I just refuse to acknowledge that the ACTION of the scientific method should be equated with philosophy when it is the FORMALISATION of the scientific method that is developed from philosophy. Most philosophers are incredibly vain and believe that they have the keys to all knowledge, and the rest of us are just there as test subjects. Before philosophy was was ever developed, math was still in use: 10+10 = 20. It was the FORMALISATION of mathematical rules that philosophy developed that is to philosophy's credit.

(The long-winded statement was only meant as a short jab, btw)

 

[creativesoul]

kenandkids:

Removing the relevant portion of my statement won't make you any more correct either.

I said: "If you want to make the case that the current,standardised FORM of the scientific method is philosophy based, that is one thing. But long before complex philosophical thought developed, we still used a basic form for survival."

And exactly what can be inferred from this?

:?

 

[Commander Eagle]

I'm actually pretty well versed in philosophy. I just refuse to acknowledge that the ACTION of the scientific method should be equated with philosophy when it is the FORMALISATION of the scientific method that is developed from philosophy.

And I agree. The results of the scientific method are no more philosophy than the actions taken by a utilitarian are philosophy.

Before philosophy was was ever developed, math was still in use: 10+10 = 20. It was the FORMALISATION of mathematical rules that philosophy developed that is to philosophy's credit.

Math was in use before anyone labeled it philosophy, yes. But this doesn't mean that it isn't philosophy.

 

[kenandkids]

Lemme clarify my earlier claim commander...

Thought precedes the chemical reactions that are caused by the influx/autonomous production of the chemicals which neuroscience has determined casue certain states of mind... dopamine, seratonin, and the like... That can be scientifically verified if you like, and I'll look it up if need be.

Please do. I'm not entirely certain that I think I understand what you're saying. Seeing what it is that you're referring to would help.

Considering that thought is dependent upon input which is developed and recorded by chemical processes in our brain, thought literally could not come before chemical processes. How could one think about what one sees before one sees it, or what one smells before one smells it, or hears before one hears it...?
Perhaps I'm missing something in that statement...

 

[kenandkids]

Math was in use before anyone labeled it philosophy, yes. But this doesn't mean that it isn't philosophy.

Is gravity philosophy? Or is it an attraction based on relative mass? I'm fairly certain that gravity existed before our ability to consider it.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Math was in use before anyone labeled it philosophy, yes. But this doesn't mean that it isn't philosophy.

Is gravity philosophy? Or is it an attraction based on relative mass? I'm fairly certain that gravity existed before our ability to consider it.

Quite so. And of course gravity isn't philosophy. But this is a false analogy.

Gravity is something that actually exists. Mathematics is just a model, like every other philosophical system. A very, very accurate model, yes, but just a model. The volume of a certain container is not philosophy, because it is not a model. The math we use to calculate that volume, though, and the numbers we use to represent the solution, are models, and are therefore philosophical constructs.

Gravity isn't philosophy. Our models of gravity are.

 

[kenandkids]

Quite so. And of course gravity isn't philosophy. But this is a false analogy.

.

You're right, it's late and I've been drinking. I'll get back to this with a clearer head. It makes more sense in here than out there right now :lol:

 

[creativesoul]

comander,

I have been unsuccessful in finding scientific peer-reviewed articles which clearly support the claim that thought precedes chemical productions in the brain, therefore, I must concede that particular point. On the other points, we are in agreement.

 

[Commander Eagle]

comander,

I have been unsuccessful in finding scientific peer-reviewed articles which clearly support the claim that thought precedes chemical productions in the brain, therefore, I must concede that particular point. On the other points, we are in agreement.

All righty then. Thanks for making the effort.