Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is exactly my point. Science gives us knowledge, not Philosophy.
I will repeat. Once upon a time Philosophy and Science were married. Then they split up and Philosophy remained Philosophy and Science became Natural Science. It was not solely the business of Philosophy to provide the framework. It was the combination of both the ancient philosophers and scientists who developed the framework. Many philosophers centuries ago were also scientists.
Wiki does a good job in explaining the History of the Scientific Method.
I hold both BS and MS degrees. I am well aware of what the Scientific Method is as well as the history of it's development.
Disagree. See above.
Long ago Philosophy and Science were apparently married.
Point is people do not notice then these philosopher-scientist wore two hats.
There were philosophers and scientists at the same time.
Science did split up from Philosophy.
Note there is a difference between Philosophy as a specialize subject and the Philosophy-of-Philosophy.
It is not the business of conventional Philosophy to establish the Scientific Framework.
But the establishment of the Framework for Science is not a Scientific Work arising from the Framework for Science. That would be circular.
My point is the Framework for Science is grounded in philosophy-proper not conventional philosophy [e.g. academic or general philosophy].
The Framework for Science [historical] was not in invention but emerged and evolve over time. However the evolution of this process as I claimed is grounded on core philosophical elements.
This Framework for Science involved Scientists over time but the point is these scientists wore the philosophical hat, not the scientist-hat when they molded and polished the Scientific Framework.
Otherwise what other elements drive the Framework for Science? I know it is definitely not Science else that would be circular.
When this split occurred, is when Philosophy began to be marginalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
Otherwise what other elements drive the Framework for Science? I know it is definitely not Science else that would be circular.
The framework of the Scientific Process was laid down Centuries ago. Why do you think the process is always depicted as non-linear but circular instead?
When this split occurred, is when Philosophy began to be marginalized.
It was only Science as a specialized subject that was split from Philosophy.
Philosophy was not marginalized but continue to be what it was and is originally.
In the Western world, philosophy as a specialized subject as academic philosophy was also split from Philosophy-proper.
But despite the split, philosophy-proper continue to be the underlying and grounding base for Science and Philosophy [as a subject] and all other fields of knowledge.
Quote:
The framework of the Scientific Process was laid down Centuries ago. Why do you think the process is always depicted as non-linear but circular instead?
It was laid down centuries ago as grounded on philosophy proper and is continuing to evolve at present and in the future.
By circular I meant we cannot use a scientific framework to establish, maintain and improve itself.
The purpose of the Scientific Framework is to oversee and produce scientific knowledge.
But the establishment, continual maintenance and improvement of that Scientific Framework itself that support scientific processes is not a scientific process. That process is more of an art than science, but effectively and ultimately that process is philosophical.
Note, I believe philosophy regardless of whatever it is at present is reducible to one fundamental concept, i.e. the drive for continuous improvement in optimizing the well being of the individual and humanity.
Someday, logic, epistemology, morality, metaphysics will also be split as specialize faculties of knowledge with their own specialized Framework and System, but philosophy-proper will still exists as ultimate ground for all these fields knowledge.
I think you may have a bias view of philosophy as limited to Western Philosophy that is practiced over its history till the present but not philosophy-proper as a universal and generic drive [faculty within the mind] within humanity.
It was only Science as a specialized subject that was split from Philosophy.
Philosophy was not marginalized but continue to be what it was and is originally.
I disagree that Philosophy has not been marginalized since Science split off and went it's own way.
I am trying to keep my discussion about the fact that Science generates knowledge not Philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
By circular I meant we cannot use a scientific framework to establish, maintain and improve itself.
Science already accomplishes this through the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. The Scientific Method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing a hypothesis or a theory. It's a process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
The purpose of the Scientific Framework is to oversee and produce scientific knowledge.
What do you mean when you say Scientific Framework?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
But the establishment, continual maintenance and improvement of that Scientific Framework itself that support scientific processes is not a scientific process. That process is more of an art than science, but effectively and ultimately that process is philosophical.
Again can you define what you mean by Scientific Framework?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
I think you may have a bias view of philosophy as limited to Western Philosophy that is practiced over its history till the present but not philosophy-proper as a universal and generic drive [faculty within the mind] within humanity.
I'm not biased against Philosophy. I'm just saying that it does not generate knowledge.
The point of the thread was the attainment of knowledge which Philosophy and now science does quite well.
The creation of new knowledge about the world leans in science's favor because of many reasons, chiefly because it produces repeatable verifiable facts. I obviously have no qualms about this.
However, if you limit the definition of knowledge to the scientific method, then you're excluding other different types of knowledge and how they are obtained. Through introspection, logic, deduction and reason.
Just as you can look at the Moon and know it is real; that is a form of Philosophical knowledge. I do not have the mechanisms to test the hypothesis that the moon is made of cheese 100% of the time. So I have to rely on deduction, other forms of knowledge to know; it's all connected. Even if I'm ignorant of the propositional logic of that P, it is still able to be known through philosophy.
As far as the creation of knowledge and or truth, philosophy works by honing frameworks, knowing over time what is not, and making Hegelian synthetic discoveries through combinations of philosophies. Thought experiments about aliens on other planets and how they would act morally is a form of Philosophical knowledge and not science. IF and when aliens show up, philosophy helps to bridge that gap with knowledge that cannot yet (or ever be) verified by science.
In theory a female brain born with.. a not indifferent philosophical ability , then if in the course of its existence it is forced to the use of rigid functions.. everything goes to bananas. Anyway, both science philosophy and other stuff are extremely influenced by the groups of power and the manipulators of the myth they and only they indicate the direction of human evolution.
However, if you limit the definition of knowledge to the scientific method, then you're excluding other different types of knowledge and how they are obtained. Through introspection, logic, deduction and reason.
I think you should try to fully understand the Scientific Method. This method also works through observation, introspection, logic and so fourth. To say otherwise, tells me that you have no true understanding of the Scientific Method.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
