[halefom]

What is the similarities between philosophy & science

[halefom]

What is the similarities between philosophy & science

[Clough]

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]

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]

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 cr@p 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What are the similarities between science and philosophy