philosophy and science

[Anonymous No.1779896]

Shit guys i'm really sorry to bother you but I need to do a homework for philosophy and I don't know what to write.

Please don't spam this thread because our proffesor is really nuts and he will easily fail me if I don't do it properly and I'm really dumb as far as philosophy is concerned, I don't know shit about it, so it would really be nice for you to help me in any way you can.,

I'm supposed to write something about:
Science and it's limits as to what it is able to do and what it should be allowed to do.

[Anonymous No.1779902]

Science shouldn't tread on god's territory. We already have the answers.

[Anonymous No.1779903]

write an essay on how helpful it is to get other people to do your work for you

[Anonymous No.1779908]

ethics or theory of knowledge?

[Anonymous No.1779910]

[Anonymous No.1779920]

>>1779902
Christfag?

[Anonymous No.1779923]

There should be no restrictions to what one should be allowed to do. Any restriction whatsoever only impedes the rate at which we gain knowledge and therefore is an oppression of the mind.

[Anonymous No.1779930]

Science is a concept, like philosophy. It doesn't "do" anything. It can only be as good, bad, or dangerous as the people wielding it. There's your opening statement. Expand upon it.

[Anonymous No.1779932]

>>1779923


Thank you very much. Now I have some base to start writing from.

>>1779903
no, it's not like that. It's just something short, definately not an essay and I'm just out of any ideas

>>1779908
dunno what you mean sorry

[Anonymous No.1779949]

>>1779932
I really hope you aren't on a philosophy degree.

look up Karl Popper, write about his work briefly,dont quote from wikipedia

[Anonymous No.1779958]

Please do write how faith and religion led almost to complete destruction of ancient heritage during middle ages. Bonus points for the end of Alexandria's Great Library.

[Anonymous No.1779961]

Okay, I'm a philosophy major who took a class on this shit.

Every philosophy teacher loves the idea of challenging the scientific method. The metaphysical problem of the scientific method is that it is still a part of human perspective, and so even though we can test for truth or falsity, even that test is still technically just an opinion and consensus based on limited tests that apply to an unlimited world. In other words, we are taking a specific set of instances and applying them universally. Is this an acceptable method for us to base our conclusions on? Is there a better one that exists or can exist? Why or why not? Is science heading in the right direction by following the scientific method or should research be done by scientists and philosophers to find a method that is metaphysically tenable?

[Anonymous No.1779969]

>>1779966

u mad bro?

[Anonymous No.1779967]

>>1779949

i have it as a mandatory subject in my hi-school.

[Anonymous No.1779966]

>>1779961
>Okay, I'm a philosophy major
Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.1779971]

>>1779961
Metaphysics has nothing to do with anything, it's make believe. Take your made-up concept and shove it up your ass.

[dolan !Uq56cE.45s No.1779973]

>>1779967
>hi-school

[Anonymous No.1779977]

>>1779961

thanks I love this shit.... defenately includin

+1 internets for saving my ass :)

[Anonymous No.1779978]

>>1779969
Yeah I'm mad, because people like you are taking away every 16 year old's dream job of being a burger-flipper.

[Anonymous No.1779980]

>>1779971

I guess you don't know much about metaphysics. Or metaphilsophy. Or meta-anything. Enjoy your trapped perspective.

[Anonymous No.1779981]

>>1779977
Dude look-up metaphysics. You will find out it means bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1779988]

>>1779971

I'm includin u too for the counter-arguments

Awesome job you guys.

>>1779973

> hatersgonnahate.JPG

[Anonymous No.1780006]

Most rationalists assert that the scientific method (empiricism), as opposed to pure reason, is the superior method of obtaining knowledge. Empiricism has more justification than religion, simply because of the bare fact that it gets results in real life, and enables us to predict the future with varying degrees of certainty. If that's not enough for you to place it above random theological musings based on nothing, than there's little else to argue about.

You assume that it actually matters whether the real world is there, whatever the term "real world" even means. We currently think the "real-world" is a universe made of space-time, but even if our reality is a simulation running on some advanced computer, the fact remains that it's actually there, and the scientific method tells us information about it.

Also, if the real world is, in fact, only a simulation, then the only hope we ever have of actually confirming this fact is (most likely) via the scientific method. Maybe after we realize this, they'll shut off the simulation.

[Anonymous No.1780010]

>>1780006
they better do it soon.

[Anonymous No.1780031]

Rationality is superior to mysticism in the results it produces. Under the acceptance of reason and empiricism, human lifespans and understanding of the world has increased. While you may point to solipsism, all the mystical frameworks still accept the reality of the world and the senses, and so they all rely on the same framework. Rationality demands reasons, whether in the natural world or in the world of moral philosophy. This enables the development of moral codes that do not rely upon the say-so of an individual, whether mortal or divine. So the rational attitude is the superior one in terms of its results and in its processes. To deny this is possible, but means denying that anything but the deepest roots are important to judging a system! In other words, to declare reason equivalent to mysticism is not to doubt the reality of the senses, but rather to deny it.

[Anonymous No.1780370]

>>1780006

Sounds like an excuse for you to be fat and ugly.

[Anonymous No.1780790]

>>1780370
You forgot the beard on the neck.