[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 186 KB, 2000x1320, philo-major.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777198 No.9777198 [Reply] [Original]

Is philosophy a science?

>> No.9777256

Sure. It's a basis.

>> No.9777260

philosophy is as much a science as math is a science

>> No.9777596

>>9777198
>Is philosophy a science?
No, philosophers do not use the scientific method.

>> No.9777610
File: 460 KB, 500x284, 70B498BC-7760-4DA4-86F2-A611B333826F.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777610

>>9777198
You cannot reproduce philosophical views or arguments via experiments with accuracy or precision as opinions will always vary and often also change.

What would it even mean to perform an experiment on a philosophical thought? What would it mean to make such a measurement accurate?

Now, science is indeed a philosophy as it came about from philosophical views. But philosophy is not a science. The whole debate is a kind to asking: is a rectangle a square?

>> No.9777616

>>9777610
The 1900s were a pretty good experimental test of marxist philosophy, yielding a whole bunch of interesting results

>> No.9777624

No, science is an application of epistemology which is a branch of philosophy.

>> No.9777636

>>9777596
This. That is why anything that can not be answered with science falls under philosophy most of the time.

>> No.9777639

>>9777616
Marxis philosophy wasn't tested. That was the marxist economy system and political structure.

>> No.9777641

>>9777610
the whole definition of science is bullshit and never holds otherwise ecology and zoology etc wouldnt be considered part of science.

>> No.9777643

>>9777256
/thread

>> No.9777650

>>9777639
>Marxis philosophy wasn't tested. That was the marxist economy system and political structure.
And even then, the lack of a control group means it wasn't really a proper scientific test.

>> No.9777669

>>9777624
no, because science has evolved mostly independently of epistemology.

>> No.9777673

No, philosophy is not a science. However, science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy.

>> No.9777674

>>9777198
No, but science is a philosophy.

>> No.9777699

>>9777641
you know it's fun to shit on ecology but we can tie behavior to physiology to genetics to cellular function. It's helpful in some areas of cell & molecular biology.

>> No.9777714

>>9777699
unless you accept that science doesnt necessitate experimentation then alot of that involves no science.

>> No.9777724
File: 151 KB, 817x1000, René_Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777724

>>9777674
Came here to post this.

>> No.9777725

>>9777198
no but science is a philosophy

>> No.9777726

it is a way to attempt measure, using mind, like all science, but not very comparable to physics, & chemistry and whatnot.
science is a philosophy.

>> No.9777791
File: 19 KB, 400x304, 1527514003428~2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777791

>>9777699
>it's fun to shit on ecology

>> No.9777872
File: 50 KB, 680x666, 5fd.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9777872

>>9777198
>not falsifiable

>> No.9777889

>>9777198
Not quite but it's deeply intertwined. Some parts of 'science' are better described as 'natural philosophy', too.

>> No.9777946

It's not, and science is not what we call "Philosophy" nowdays. They are two different academic paths that intersect in some important subjects.

>> No.9778055

>>9777714
I think of ecology as a base of knowledge, or observations. The overall scientific effort relies on those observations to then make experiments. So, it and of itself maybe you don't want to call it science, but I think that's kind of the wrong way to look at it. I feel like that would be akin to saying you're not doing math when you're reading a math problem. I mean that seems true in a really pedantic sense but it's ultimately necessary if you want to actually accomplish a goal.

but I'm not an ecologist so maybe they can name experiments

>> No.9778060

philosophy is rarted

>> No.9778212

>>9778055
you cant do ecological experiments and if you did, they would be comparable in control to ones you do in psychology or "natural experiments" in sociology.

my solution is that science doesnt inherently rely on experimentation. science is just about making models of the natural world. experimentation is a big tool but methodologically science is incredibly diverse and is more about systematic and critical empiricism rather than any linear procedure or special characteristic.

You could argue that experimentation is the ideal way to investigate variables and model hypotheses but in much of science this just isnt possible even though youre still trying to create robust, well-defined models of how the world works; and if they can't, then properly critique them and the methodologies used.