[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 187 KB, 804x1052, Plato_Aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586239 No.4586239 [Reply] [Original]

What is the difference between Science and Philosophy?

>> No.4586245

physics experiments

>> No.4586255

>>4586239

Absolutely Nothing.

>> No.4586261

Science is falsifiable.

And yes - "Women studies" and similar bullshit are not science

>> No.4586258

Jobs.

>> No.4586266

science has more limited aims but typically some hope of hitting them.

>> No.4586268

Science is creating systems to explain the natural world based on observation and experimentation. This is done for practical benefit (e.g. we create physics so that we can build buildings).

Philosophy is the questioning of things. It used to be for the expansion of our minds, but now it's just for boosting our ego.

>> No.4586271

>>4586261
>And yes - "Women studies" and similar bullshit are not science
wtf

>> No.4586292

From a Pyrrhonian perspective there is no difference. It's all dogma getting in the way of my ataraxia.

>> No.4586294

A science degree will keep you hired.

>> No.4586303

>>4586294
Ph. D. in philosophy ain't bad. Knew a guy who made some crazy money as an 'ethics consultant'. Hardly worked.

Of course, philosophy is supposed to be the purely impractical search for truth and all.

>> No.4586319

Science is based in theorethical assumptions that you can't question.

>> No.4586332

>>4586303
>ethics consultant
New dream job.

>> No.4586341

Nothing in particular, but for simplicity's sake people use separate words based on what they want to accomplish and how.

>> No.4586348
File: 11 KB, 534x517, 1391886558624.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586348

>>4586239

>> No.4586362

Connected in definition. Deeply separated in connotation (of the common man). Atheist-activist pop-scientists tend to see all philosophers as devout theologians/philosophers of religion. I've pretty much never seen the prejudice go the other direction.

>> No.4586368

If there is a difference it makes absolutely no difference.

>> No.4586369

>>4586303
>>4586332
My philosophy department head in college was also an ethics consultant for a local hospital. He showed up there a couple times a week and told me he reels in almost as much dosh as he makes teaching. Dude also married the hot-ass provost my senior year and he's in a wheelchair with MS. Fucking man of men.

>> No.4586384

>>4586332

Here's my new comedy:

>intense academic nietzschean/heideggerian loses a bunch of cash during episodes of extreme debauchery

>becomes a white collar ethics consultant to pay off some mob bosses

Will be called: Beyond Good and Evil

>> No.4586399
File: 31 KB, 513x496, 1392857065899.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586399

>>4586348
Actually it's more like this

>> No.4586401

>>4586384

Fund it

>> No.4586402

ah yes, the mythical 'ethics consultant', that old chestnut that gets dragged out every time someone asks what job there's to be gotten out of studying philosophy. I prefer the ol 'you can get into law through it' line.

>> No.4586404

>>4586369
>disabled faggot
>man
faggot detected

>> No.4586407

>>4586399
Well lookie who reads xkcd.

>> No.4586409

>>4586261
>Science is falsifiable.
an argument is a form of experiment. arguments are disprovable.

there's no difference

>> No.4586418

>>4586409
Arguments are not measurable.
Relying only on logic to verify things was the reason why science didn't really take off until Tycho Brahe.

>> No.4586420

Science is how
Philosophy is why

>> No.4586422
File: 21 KB, 513x496, 1392857940734.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586422

>>4586399
ftfy

>> No.4586425

Science is a philosophy based in the assumption that the laws of nature are fundamentally unchangeable. It is not the only philosophy with this assumption, and there are other distinguishing factors, but the immutability of nature's laws is essential.

>> No.4586426

>>4586409
lul

>> No.4586427

>>4586399

have you ever

um

learned what philosophy is?

maybe?

>> No.4586459

>>4586409
That's outright Aristotelianism, sir! Are you some 'species' of medievalist? How dare you say logical arguments are on par with science!

>> No.4586464

>>4586384
Adapted into new film starring Steve Buschemi

>> No.4586477
File: 415 KB, 1276x1600, aristoteles.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586477

>>4586459


ari was the realest nigga, even heidegger or aquinas are at their best through their commentaries on him.

>> No.4586487

>>4586477
Can you break him down for me? I took a Plato class, so my knowledge between those two is really one sided and I hate it.

>> No.4586489

>>4586477
Only that his "Experiments don't real, only logic" stunted all scientific growth until the renaissance

>> No.4586507
File: 20 KB, 600x200, Lichtung.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586507

>>4586477
That's fallacious. 'Stotle wasn't the best, he just happened to be one of the very first. If, say, Heidegger had lived in late Classical Greece, he would have discovered everything Aristotle did, and more.

>> No.4586508

Philosophy originally was about trying to answer pretty much everything, including questions like "What are things made of?" (Thales, the first philosopher, claimed that the things were made of water), What's truth?, What is good? What is wrong? What is virtue? What is knowledge? How should we acquire knowledge? What is beauty? What is god? How is god? etc...

As time passed, many specific branches of philosophy evolved into sciences, like physics or psychology.

>> No.4586530
File: 1.09 MB, 1456x2012, 1392860124267.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4586530

>>4586508
>Thales, the first philosopher, claimed that the things were made of water

That was pretty advanced for it's time, though. He basically pioneered ontotheological monism.

>> No.4586533

>>4586487


hes kinda hard to 'break down' because he wrote about alot of different things at varying levels of abstraction. as noted aquinas did a series of commentaries on him which is great for understanding his works, there is also the work of alisdair macintyre who shows how the aristotelian conception of virtue ethics supercedes more modern frameworks, and hence is not subject to their same problems.

and of course, you could also just read the stuff itself.

>>4586489

this is pure fan-fiction history.

>> No.4586543

>>4586239
Science is to Philosophy what Baltimore is to Earth.

Only considerably less shitty, far more useful in a pragmatic sense and not filled with Black People.

>> No.4586545

>>4586533
Awesome, thanks. MacIntyre really helped me tackle Marcuse.

>> No.4587831

>>4586261
i can almost smell the fedora
"falsifiable"
at least fucking read kuhn for gods sake

>> No.4587840

>>4586303
Ethics Consultant sounds like a lawyer with no actual knowledge. Pretty damn cool.

>> No.4587841
File: 518 KB, 1920x1080, 1392893745156.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4587841

Philosophy lost its place years ago. It is now the age of science. For better or worse.

>> No.4587967

>>4587841
Feel free to b-b-back that opinion up.

>> No.4587971

>>4587841
it's not. Just for a bunch of enthusiasts and ideologues.
>muh new paradigm
not going to happen

>> No.4587975

>>4586292

>implying Pyrrhonists aim at ataraxia

it's like you're trying to be retarded

>> No.4587981

>>4586369

sounds like a worthless prick get it?because he's in a wheelchairlel

>> No.4587986

>>4587841
Science is just a particular philosophical tradition. It has become a very vulgar tradition.

>> No.4588693
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588693

Science deals with explaining observations in the real world.
Philosophy makes up irrelevant and pointless questions which cannot be answered in a meaningful way.

>> No.4588736

>>4586459
quine pls leave

>> No.4588769

>>4586402
You can get into law with any 2:1. Except perhaps law.

>> No.4588815

>>4588693
absolutely, hella f*cking epic
>saved

>> No.4588826

>>4588693

Well congratulations nigger, you're doing philosophy when you say that. Get the fuck outta here.

>> No.4588832

>>4588826
>you're doing philosophy when you say that

No, I'm not. I was merely applying common sense, which is obviously something philosophers are lacking.

>> No.4588835
File: 692 KB, 300x168, 1392885317294.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588835

>>4588832

Okay. Whatever you want, babe.

>> No.4588839

>>4588832
Philosophy is common sense, or at least attempts to be

>> No.4588841

>>4588839
Philosophers deny common sense.

>> No.4588842

>>4588832
Common sense guise

>> No.4588848

>>4588841
Or aligns itself with it.

>> No.4588855

>>4588841
Lol k. Read George Berkeley's dialogue and have your jimmies rustled, pard.

>> No.4588929
File: 860 KB, 500x337, uLbNwKm.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4588929

>>4586239

Their method, their object, and their scope.

*grabs his crotch, and moonwalks, then in Michael Jacksonish tone, screams*

"Ei-dos!!"

*while pointing with his finger up in the sky*

>> No.4589077

Go read the definition of science in any dictionary.
Go read the definition of philosophy in any dictionary.

Stop being lazy and asking stupid questions.

>> No.4589094

>>4589077
But philosophers can't into using a dictionary. Philosophers are verbally impaired due to their autism. Why else do you think they need to fight over the semantics of words every normally developed person understands intuitively, like e.g. knowledge, consciousness or justice?

>> No.4589108

>>4589094
>every normally developed person understands intuitively
plebs these days...

>> No.4589110

>>4589094
OP's question is a philosophical question then.

Anyway, it's not the type of philosophy I'm interested in and that's why I said to OP to just look it up in a dictionary.

>> No.4589124

Mathematics is actually a branch of philosophy - it is a discipline which relies not upon experiments but pure thought to deduce things. The empirical method is also a product of philosophy.

So actually I think that
>>4586348
Is about right as it's saying that the discipline of science is contained within the discipline of philosophy, which it kinda is.

>> No.4589178

>>4589077

But that is not a stupid question at all. It could be the subject of an extense dissertation.

>> No.4589182

>>4586239
scientific perception and scientific thought.
material and immaterial.

there is no separation between the two.

>> No.4589193

Science is philosophy with a rigorous method of inquiry which emphases objectifying of reality as a goal, and curiosity and skepticism as virtues.

>> No.4589250

>>4586239
>Philosophy is much like science, however, science pressuposes silogistic indution and/or empirical evidence. But empirical evidence cant prove a series of things which we know to be real from phenomena, for example: aestethics, morality, mathematics (science uses it but cannot justify it empirically, it would be walking in circles), and even science itself cannot be justified by science alone.

>> No.4589264
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4589264

>>4589250
>aestethics
is being researched statistically in the social SCIENCES

>morality
can and should be topic of science and only science, pic related

>mathematics
is nothing more than a tool

>> No.4589415

>>4589193
>science
>skepticism as a virtue

top kek. induction says hello

>> No.4589420

>>4589264
>social sciences
>anything more than gibberish and shit

This is why 'science' was originally and more properly referred to as 'Natural Science.' Any time science leaves the realm of observation and quantification, it's out of its depth.

>> No.4589425

>>4589420
>philosopher
>calling social science "gibberish and shit"

My lels are in orbit.

>> No.4589427

>>4589425
They're called the 'soft sciences' for a reason. Even real scientists think the social sciences are terrible, they're just too polite to be upfront about it.

>> No.4589434

>>4589427
Soft science is still science and therefore a billion times better than philosophy. Is shit flinging your only mode of communication, philosotard? Pathetic.

>> No.4589451

>>4589434
science is derived from philosophy and utilises a number of philosophic principles in its method

>> No.4589459

>>4589451
Chemistry is derived from alchemy. Astrophysics is derived from astrology. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Science superseded philosophy. Deal with it. Welcome to the 21st century.

>> No.4589460

>>4589434

>disparaging philosophy
>2014

>not knowing how to using science and philosophy side by side
>2014

>being this fervent against philosophy that you violently flail your arms and recycle the same argument used every time this discussion is brought up
>2014

ok, enjoy your shitty tastes scientismtard
ill be over here, knowing the stuff you know plus the stuff you don't know.

>> No.4589468

>>4589460
Science and philosophy are incompatible. Philosophy's anti-intellectual "cannot know nuthin" is in direct contradiction to the objective truth of the scientific method.

>> No.4589471

>>4589468

that's nice bob. remember, knowing the stuff you don't know.

>> No.4589476

>>4589471
Who the fuck is bob? Are you hallucinating again, you schizophrenic hobo?

>> No.4589479

>>4589476
Go back to /sci/, all you're doing is making yourself and us annoyed.

>> No.4589481

>>4589479
/sci/ is dead.

>> No.4589484

>>4589476
that's not how you treat your superiors bob. whyre you overcompensating? that doesnt help none.

dont feel threatened.

im just sitting here, still knowing the stuff you don't know.

>> No.4589490

idk read the dictionary and compare them

>> No.4589491

>>4589484
Take your meds, you delusional dimwit.

>> No.4589498

that philosophy is the purest of all sciences

>> No.4589493

Science is applied philosophy.

>> No.4589499

>>4589493
Hahaha, no. Science is applied intelligence.

>> No.4589503

>>4589468
>objective truth

stem majors crack me up

>> No.4589511

>>4589503
>implying that pragmatist truth isn't the only meaningful definition of truth
>implying science isn't truthful as fuck by pragmatist standards

>> No.4589519

>>4589491
there there bob. its ok. no, shh... its ok dear.

its acceptable to be a shallow-hearted drone.

>> No.4589521

>>4589511
as long you accept that you're making a leap of faith, i don't give a fuck

>> No.4589531

HIDE SCIENTISMIST THREADS
IGNORE SCIENTISMIST POSTS
DO NOT REPLY TO SCIENTISMIST POSTERS

>> No.4589532

>>4589519
Take your meds. Nobody wants to see your schizophrenic ramblings.

>> No.4589557

>>4588736

Hey man, you got a problem with my buddy Quine, you got a problem with me, and lemme tell you you don't want a problem with me, so how about you just settle down and shut up?

>> No.4589579

>What is the difference between Science and Philosophy?
The Enlightenment

>> No.4589586

wow such thoughts

>> No.4589594

>>4586239
Natural science is the Apollonian, Philosophy is the Dionysian.

>> No.4589606

>>4589427
Scientists do not think that, nor do they think that philosophy is terrible. Stop equating engineering majors to scientists. You do not represent us.

>> No.4589611

>>4588832
What's this common sense you're talking about mate?
Is it a virtue?

>> No.4589615

>>4589611
What went wrong in your childhood that you never developed common sense? Are your parents christfags?

>> No.4589619

>>4589615
Funny thing is that it's usually christfags and conservatives who worship "common sense". I'd call it blue-collar romanticism.

>> No.4589631

>>4589615
>my opinion is right because it's common sense
top kek

>> No.4589637

>>4588693
I don't think /lit/ never learns. This is the same guy that brags about how much math and logic he knows than anyone on here, but once confronted, he couldn't even distinguish some elementary facts about metalogic. Nor he could prove a simple theorem, that other time.

Stop falling for the same troll, you mouth breathers.

>> No.4589640

Science is a practical philosophy of materialism. It's been doing for itself the past few hundred years, leading some to think of it as the ultimate aim for truth.

>> No.4589660

>>4589637
>guy

You sure remember a lot of that thread ...
/sarcasm