Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    halefom's Avatar
    halefom Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Jan 13, 2010, 11:23 PM
    What is the similarities between philosophy & science
    What is the similarities between philosophy & science
    halefom's Avatar
    halefom Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #2

    Jan 13, 2010, 11:25 PM

    What is the similarities between philosophy & science
    Clough's Avatar
    Clough Posts: 26,677, Reputation: 1649
    Uber Member
     
    #3

    Jan 13, 2010, 11:34 PM
    Hi, halefom!

    The similarities in what ways, please? More information from you would be appreciated as to the specifics as to what you're wanting to know.

    Thanks!
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #4

    Jan 16, 2010, 01:24 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by halefom View Post
    what is the similarities between philosophy & science
    In my opinion the similarities centre around one word, "empiricism"

    Philosophy has had a long history of empiricism and it can be traced back as far as Aristotle. Empiricism is the claim that knowledge can be obtained by employing our senses in order to make observations about the natural world. For example. Aristotle claimed that from his EXPERIENCE he noted that people require different things at different times in order to make them happy. In other words, it depends on their circumstances.

    Now, Aristotle and may others after him were using a type of scientific method. By this I mean they were using observations and experience to formulate a hypothesis based on their findings. But, were they actually doing science? The answer is NO.

    Why? It was not until recently, notably Kepler, Newton and the like who were actually doing science. This is because they used mathematics to back up their scientific theories.
    Tokugawa's Avatar
    Tokugawa Posts: 22, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #5

    Jan 20, 2010, 01:23 PM

    Originally, all knowledge was called Philosophy, (love of wisdom). With Aristotle, Philosophy then broke off into two parts, "natural philosophy", and "metaphysics". We cannot keep to strict a timeline, as the wisdom of the Greeks was lost to western thought for centuries before being re-introduced. "Natural philosophy" then evolved into "Natural Science", and finally just "Science".

    The "scientific method" can be traced back to Aristotle. In truth, there is nothing special in his "metaphysics" other than the method by which he conducts his investigation. This is remarkable in itself, and represents a great leap forward in methodology.

    Ibn al-Haytham led the "Golden Age" of Islamic science with techniques which no doubt owe their existence to Aristotle. This was done at a time when Europe wallowed in filth.

    All "new" sciences are very much philosophical. "Quantum Mechanics" "Cognitive Science" and pretty much all of the "Social Sciences" have very fresh "philosophical roots". "Epistemology" or "theory of knowledge" is of course extremely important to any science, and is highly contentious in fields such as "evolutionary psychology" , (which is [email protected] in my opinion).

    TUT is probably a better person than me to answer this, I am not analytical by any means. However I would take issue with his definition, as Newton invented his own math anyway, (I know about Leibniz) .
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #6

    Jan 20, 2010, 02:34 PM
    Hi Tokugawa,

    I think you have done a better job at answering the question than myself.

    Your focus on Aristotle was a good move. His influence on philosophy was massive,even up to the 17th century. The division between natural science and metaphysics was a watershed in philosophy.
    Nonetheless, I would argue that Aristotle was still doing metaphysics and his influence was so great that many subsequent philosophers were still following his lead.

    I would say it was Descartes who struggled with the distinction between the mental and the physical, but it was Hume who made the distinction crystal clear. I don't think we can underestimate Hume's contribution to the distinction between the natural sciences and metaphysics. Hume was of course very critical of metaphysics.

    It is interesting that towards the end of your post you mention Leibnitz
    I read somewhere that Leibnitz came close to developing the idea of quantum mechanics when he explored his idea of,'sufficient reason'.


    Regards
    Tut
    Tokugawa's Avatar
    Tokugawa Posts: 22, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #7

    Jan 20, 2010, 04:03 PM

    Hi TUT,

    I am afraid that your knowledge on this subject far surpasses my own. I have only a cursory understanding of Hume, through my engagement with Kant, and your own posts here!

    You do, of course, have a far better understanding of analytical philosophy than myself, whose interests lie more in history and existential philosophy.

    The reason why I mentioned Leibnitz, is because he invented the same mathematical system concurrently with Newton. This of course leads us to an old metaphysical question, is mathematics "real" or "ideal". As a Kantian, I feel it is "ideal".

    Leibnitz is not the only one to rationally evolve some quite astounding insights. The "double slit" experiment can in my opinion be viewed as a vindication of Kantian metaphysics. Also, recent developments (or should that be, lack of developments) in AI, also point to a revisitation of Kant's philosophy, which seem to have been buried under 50 years of binary obsession. PAH!!

    Regards
    Tokugawa
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #8

    Jan 21, 2010, 01:28 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokugawa View Post
    Hi TUT,


    The reason why I mentioned Leibnitz, is because he invented the same mathematical system concurrently with Newton. This of course leads us to an old metaphysical question, is mathematics "real" or "ideal". As a Kantian, I feel it is "ideal".

    Leibnitz is not the only one to rationally evolve some quite astounding insights. The "double slit" experiment can in my opinion be viewed as a vindication of Kantian metaphysics. Also, recent developments (or should that be, lack of developments) in AI, also point to a revisitation of Kant's philosophy, which seem to have been buried under 50 years of binary obsession. PAH!!!

    Regards
    Tokugawa
    Hi Tokugawa,

    Yes, I forgot all about that. There was no love lost between Leibnitz and Newton.

    I wouldn't doubt that Kant had an impact on the thinking of quantum scientists in the early days. Interestingly enough metaphysics seems to be making an impact in the area of non-classical science. Well, slight impact.

    Regards
    Tut
    TUT317's Avatar
    TUT317 Posts: 657, Reputation: 76
    Senior Member
     
    #9

    Jan 21, 2010, 08:04 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokugawa View Post
    Hi TUT,


    The reason why I mentioned Leibnitz, is because he invented the same mathematical system concurrently with Newton. This of course leads us to an old metaphysical question, is mathematics "real" or "ideal". As a Kantian, I feel it is "ideal".

    Leibnitz is not the only one to rationally evolve some quite astounding insights. The "double slit" experiment can in my opinion be viewed as a vindication of Kantian metaphysics. Also, recent developments (or should that be, lack of developments) in AI, also point to a revisitation of Kant's philosophy, which seem to have been buried under 50 years of binary obsession. PAH!!!

    Regards
    Tokugawa

    Hello again Tokugawa,

    I almost missed the best part of your response. That is, do we look at mathematics in terms of "realism" or "idealism?". As far as Kant's view is concerned I think he saw mathematics as realism. What Kant saw mathematics as, and what others think are of course two different matters. It is equally possible to argue for an idealist position.

    I would say that Kant saw mathematics as realism because of his synthetic apriori. He was of the opinion that mathematics should be included in synthetic apriori judgments. Again, this is the subject of much debate. In fact, some people might say there is no such things as synthetic apriori judgments. I tend to think there are such things.

    Regards Tut
    fitsh's Avatar
    fitsh Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #10

    Oct 20, 2010, 11:39 AM
    What are the similarities between science and philosophy

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search


Check out some similar questions!

I want to know difference between philosophy and science [ 10 Answers ]

What is the difference between philosophy and science

Definition or Arts & Science [ 8 Answers ]

I've read many definitions of Art in different dictionaries. But none was satisfying enough. Once I brainstormed & with the blessings of God, definitions of Arts & Science came into my mind. Can you (reader) give me some comments/feedback weather this definition of mine is right or not or...

What is relationship between art & science [ 1 Answers ]

I have a assignment in a Drama class and the teacher wants me to explain the relationship between art and science. I can define science and art but am having a hard time understand the "relationship" between the two. Help!:o

Philosophy of science [ 2 Answers ]

How was the trasition from geocentrism to heliocentrism executed. Who are the dramatis personal and their input to science.

Why teach history and philosophy of science [ 2 Answers ]

Why is it we should have to teach the history and philosophy of science.


View more questions Search