/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10087977
That's because the instant empirical data enters the equation we consider it to no longer be philosophy.

It's like philosophy is a person that everyone ignores until they put their science hat on and then they're all like "fuck yeah science I missed you buddy where'd you come from how've you been".
The general paradigms of science, flaws and all, are founded entirely in philosophy. The only difference now is that we've demanded that philosophy be considered a separate discipline. In the past you had characters like Leibniz and Descartes who actively contributed to math, physics, and various natural sciences, while being considered by history to be philosophers, because in the historical perspective the pursuit knowledge isn't a matter of social competition.

Denying philosophy's access to empirical substance is an arbitrary restriction that will obviously work against its credit. The irony is that the converse - denying science's use of philosophy - inhibits science as well.

Philosophy is rational inquiry. It seeks to find truths and root out untruths through force of thought - the same thought that underlies any progress in any logical discipline. In other words, philosophy is literally the purified version of the force that drives the progress of math and science. Observation is nothing without reflection, and experimentation depends on the creative conception of the experiment.

So with the modern manipulation of its ontology, philosophy is utterly barred from contributing anything to the world unless it channels it through a science. However, it contributes a lot to the mind of the individual, and I think it would be a significant improvement to the scientist to learn philosophy. The same problem does not exist for the philosopher - we already learn math and science, because our goal is purer and it leads us to take interest in every available source of knowledge that could contribute to the general framework of understanding.