What Philosophy IS and What it IS NOT

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
Give me an example (just one) of a "why" question that Science can answer.

Just awaiting a response to the above (quoted). Also, I wanted to get this thread back on the first page, in case someone didn't get a chance to read the posts.

 

[Tisthammerw]

Philosophy of Science is about science

Originally posted by Alexander
third link is sloppy description of how science works.

I'll bite. How exactly is the third link (at http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html for those who wish to see it) sloppy?

I originally created the paper as a high school project some years back, made some revisions here and there along the way. Granted, I do have some seriously overdue revisions to make, but what exactly is wrong with it? What fact does it report incorrectly?

So, turns out that philosophers of science do not even know science.

I would wager to say the opposite is true. Often times it seems that philosophers of science know more about science than scientists do (as it pertains to the system of science itself). For instance, I have heard repeatedly from various scientific writings (by scientists) quoting Popper saying that falsification is essential to a scientific theory, so that if a scientific theory cannot be empirically falsified it is not a legitimate scientific theory. While at first this might sound reasonable (as to a young science student like myself, until I was disillusioned when I read some good material on the philosophy of science) this suffers from serious problems, among them the Duhem-Quine problem preventing one to conclusively falsify a theory by empirical means. Another case of ignorance I have encountered is the underdetermination of theories and the role of non-empirical philosophical (though perhaps rational) values in theory acceptance.

And this is understandable - working knowledge of science is not required by their job description, because a philosophy is HUMANITY - subjective discipline of opinions, not of facts as science.

Philosophy does concern itself with facts, some of which science is utterly dependent upon (e.g. whether or not knowledge is even possible is a philosophical question). Furthermore, philosophy of science is a discipline that examines the system of science itself (its assumptions, limitations, structure, how it works, etc.). Of course it demands knowledge of science.

 

[nickdanger]

I'd like to point out that what Alex and LA are espousing is unsubstantiated by science. In other words, they are promoting a philosophy that philosophy sucks. Rather humorous really.

Come now...I believe it was Pascal who said 'to ridicule philosophy is truly philosophical".