My theoretical framework

[brodski]

I think it comes down to this for me.

I find that philosophy is a game I do not need to play.

I can ignore it and be no worse off, not in any way hindered in anything I should choose to do or explore -- with the single exception of studying philosophy itself.

The same can not be said for science, law, and history, for example. If I am ignorant of these, I have real problems in my life, and obstacles in my way.

actually, for many people the same can be said for science and history, my computer works whether I understand the underlying science or technology or not. The tools of science work whether I understand the philosophy behind them or not.

Would we have eventually hit on the right path to, say, science without it? Probably so.

You can make exactly the same argument can be made about whether we would have hit upon the same technological progress without science.

Science is an application of philosophy.

 

[Darat]

actually, for many people the same can be said for science and history, my computer works whether I understand the underlying science or technology or not. The tools of science work whether I understand the philosophy behind them or not.

You can make exactly the same argument can be made about whether we would have hit upon the same technological progress without science.

Science is an application of philosophy.

I'm a fence-sitter on this at the moment. I can see the point Piggy is making and I can see the point the big Ps are making.

But something about your last sentence doesn't quite ring true to me:

"Science is an application of philosophy."

Is that true? Whilst I agree you can study science (as an application) with the tools of philosophy and even describe it in philosophical terms I don't see how that means you can draw the conclusion that it is an application of philosophy.

 

[Piggy]

I dunno about that, Piggy. I think it's perfectly possible to live your life ignorant of science (and indeed, many people do).

Oh, sure. Agreed.

But what I'm saying is that, short of studying philosophy itself, I can pursue any activity I want and ignore philosophy and have no problems.

Not so with law, science, and history.

As brodski pointed out, the practical work of philosophy effects you and the world you live in as much as science does. The long traditions of philosophy of science, ethics, logic and the philosophy of law, and the work being done by philosophers in those same disciplines today, have direct influence on your life.

Oh, indeed it does. No argument here. Same for religion.

 

[Piggy]

Yeah but if you do that the philosophers will whip out the label "pragmatist" quicker than you can say "I'd have gotten away with it as well if it wasn't for you pesky philosophers!"

Yeah, I know.

And I have no problem with that. If they want to slice and dice the world in that way and use their own labels to discuss various ways of looking at the world, fine by me.

But I can't get on board when it's claimed, by various means, that because they have that label, I must therefore be engaged in philosophy.

Kindof smacks of the "atheism is another religon" argument -- tho I don't think it actually goes that far.

 

[Piggy]

Science is an application of philosophy.

I guarantee you that I could take a small child and teach him how to view the world scientifically and use the scientific method on a purely "see, this does that" basis with no reference to any philosophy whatsoever.

All hands-on, all common sense, all with the perceptive and analytical abilities that come hard-wired into us.

So it's just not possible for me to see how it could be an application of philosophy.

If he were to ask, "Why not just believe what I'm told?" or "Why not accept what's in the Bible?" or "How come we can't stop after one test?" I can answer these questions, yet again, with practical, reality-based answers and no reference to philo at all.

 

[brodski]

I guarantee you that I could take a small child and teach him how to view the world scientifically and use the scientific method on a purely "see, this does that" basis with no reference to any philosophy whatsoever.

i could teach a kid how to build an engine without reference to science (OK I couldn't, but if I knew how to build an engine... )Just because philosophy is not explicitly referenced in day to day science doesn't mean that there is no philosophical basis underpinning any scientific enquiry or application, just like science is not explicitly referenced in the day to day aplication of technology.

 

[Piggy]

i could teach a kid how to build an engine without reference to science

But could you teach him engineering, not just how to build an engine, without reference to science?

 

[brodski]

But could you teach him engineering, not just how to build an engine, without reference to science?

yes. It would be a different kind of engineering, but then it would also be a different kind of science if you were forced to strip all philosophy from it.
Would you, for instance, cover the topic of falsifiability? Or the fallibility of our senses? Or the need, even desirability of replication? How would you justify your stance on these topics withough engaging in philosophy?

Would you cover why just saying that something is "common sense" is a poor method of judging the truth or otherwise of a statement?

 

[Piggy]

yes. It would be a different kind of engineering, but then it would also be a different kind of science if you were forced to strip all philosophy from it.

Point taken.

Still not fully in agreement, but you do have a point there.

 

[Piggy]

Would you cover why just saying that something is "common sense" is a poor method of judging the truth or otherwise of a statement?

You bet.

 

[brodski]

You bet.

OK, drop two balls of equal size, one ways which as much as the other, which lands first. sue common science to answer.
Roll a marble down a spiral, when it hits the floor does it continue to move in a circle, or does it move in a straight line- sue common sense to answer.

Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun move round the earth, answer with only reference to "common sense"

When tested against reality common sense is often wrong, which is what a lot of science is all about.

What was the bet again?

 

[Piggy]

Ok, I just hauled my trash to the dump, and along the way I pondered this idea of science being an application of philosophy, and after careful consideration, I can find no support for such an assertion.

There hasn't been a single scientific concept, experiment, or theory that I've ever needed any philosophy to understand.

The reason I can't read as much Einstein or Hawking as I'd like is that I can't follow their math, not their "philosophy".

No, I can't accept that idea.

 

[brodski]

There hasn't been a single scientific concept, experiment, or theory that I've ever needed any philosophy to understand.

But why is the experiment important? How do you interpret the experiments? how do theories fit together? These are the philosophical questions.

ETA, just because much of the philosophy behind science is now well established, and ingrained in our culture enough to be "obvious" doesn't mean its not there, something doesn't have to be difficult to understand to be philosophy.

 

[Piggy]

OK, drop two balls of equal size, one ways which as much as the other, which lands first. sue common science to answer.
Roll a marble down a spiral, when it hits the floor does it continue to move in a circle, or does it move in a straight line- sue common sense to answer.

Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun move round the earth, answer with only reference to "common sense"

When tested against reality common sense is often wrong, which is what a lot of science is all about.

What was the bet again?

I don't understand your point here.

My reference to "common sense" was never intended to imply that we can rely on common sense to answer all our questions.

What I am saying is that common sense, direct experience, observation, the reasoning capacity hard-wired into our brains... these are sufficient to learn the scientific method, to practice it, to understand it. And indeed, to understand the body of scientific knowledge.

Well, those and a few other skills such as literacy.

But philosophy is not necessary. Sure, you can do your philosophy after the fact and ponder the philosophical import of scientific revelations. But that's beside the point.

Science should not lead us away from common sense, although it does a wonderful job of showing us why common sense alone is often unreliable and just plain wrong.

At first glance, maybe it seems like common sense that the earth is flat.

But once you put all the observations together and use plain old garden-variety reason to connect the dots, it becomes common-sensical that the earth is round.

Common sense is necessary for science, but not sufficient. Philosophy, on the other hand, is neither sufficient nor necessary.

 

[brodski]

Common sense is necessary for science, but not sufficient. Philosophy, on the other hand, is neither sufficient nor necessary.

But your, somewhat odd, definition of "common sense", a method for interpreting the information which we are presented is philosophy.

 

[Piggy]

But why is the experiment important? How do you interpret the experiments? how do theories fit together? These are the philosophical questions.

No, they're not.

Well, they can be, if you care to indulge. They could also be religious questions if you take them into that arena.

Some non-philosophical answers to those questions might include:

1. It's important because if we can't figure out whether A is denser than B we can't build this thing here so that it does what we want it to do. Or we can, but it would mean trial and error, and boy, is that gonna be expensive!

2. This worked. That failed. That means the hypothesis underlying this was correct, and the hypothesis underlying that was incorrect.

3. Gould came around to the notion of the validity of scientific philosophy precisely because of this point of how theories fit together. So here's where I'm willing to say that because I'm not a scientist, maybe I'm missing something that's going on at a higher level. But from my perspective, it still rings a bit false. You do it the way you do anything else: If A is true, and B is true, that means C's gotta be true, too, and D must be false.

Again, we can do this, seems to me (from my admittedly naive perspective) using the basic reasoning powers hard-wired into our brains.

 

[brodski]

And, if science is just the application of a thought process which is "hard wired" into our brain, why did it take thousands of years of human civilisation for science to develop?
Why is it necessary to teach it? To overcome the unscientific way that most people tend to think?

 

[Piggy]

But your, somewhat odd, definition of "common sense", a method for interpreting the information which we are presented is philosophy.

Sure, you can call it philosophy if you like.

Thing is, I can discard the label and be none the worse off.

Common sense is the computational ability we're born with, on the one hand. But on the other hand, the term can also be used to refer to "how things seem at first glance". So it's a bit of a slippery fish.

When used properly, common sense, observation, skepticism, and the basic scientific method will get you where you need to go.

To go even deeper, to places where un-aided observation can't take us, we need better technology, not better philosophy.

How about this... how about you show me something which is necessarily philosophical that I can't do without.

Because, from my point of view, philosophy is pretty much just the practice of slapping labels on things, then arguing about the labels.

 

[Piggy]

And, if science is just the application of a thought process which is "hard wired" into our brain, why did it take thousands of years of human civilisation for science to develop?
Why is it necessary to teach it? To overcome the unscientific way that most people tend to think?

Because that's not all that's in our brains.

There are certain delusions which are advantageous from an evolutionary point of view.

However, although delusions might help us make it through the night, only reason can reliably align our notions about the world with the reality of the world.

But it's often true that reason ain't pretty.

 

[brodski]

1. It's important because if we can't figure out whether A is denser than B we can't build this thing here so that it does what we want it to do. Or we can, but it would mean trial and error, and boy, is that gonna be expensive!

But why the need for evidence? How does the experiment help us to figure it out?

2. This worked. That failed. That means the hypothesis underlying this was correct, and the hypothesis underlying that was incorrect.

It worked now, but will ti work in the future? Can past events be sued to predict future events? How should they be used to do so? What evidence should weignore, all questions which are philosophical in nature.

If A is true, and B is true, that means C's gotta be true, too, and D must be false.

don't look now, but you've just done philosophy.

Again, we can do this, seems to me (from my admittedly naive perspective) using the basic reasoning powers hard-wired into our brains.

I doubt it, again if we can, why did it take to long for science to develop?