Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Togo1]

Nope. That is just your opinion, which is only relevant here, for what it isn't worth.

Nice attempt at an analogy, but there is no such thing as an "orchestra of Science." Science has an overall framework and it has nothing to do with philosophy.

The framework is a mix of empericism, naturalism and pragmatism, and used to be referred to be as Natural Philosophy.

This kind of discussion also is useful in showing the limits of empericism. We can discuss whether science is or isn't philosophical, but it's a definition, an arguement about classification, and not subject to emperical verification.

To establish a proof in science, you need to begin with a premise,

Specifically its a testable premise i.e. a hypothesis. There's quite a lot of work that goes into choosing a good hypothesis. It needs to be practically testable, have face validity either way, and ideally be doubled ended. So 'Zxaxnol makes people sleepy' is a poor hypothesis, while 'Doses of 100mg of Zxaxnol taken orally effect the ability of subjects to fall asleep within an hour of consumption' is a much better one. It sets some limits around what you need to test, allows for the idea that the drug might have the opposite effect to what you expect, and is nicely practical.

Or to put it another way, scientific methodology works better for some questions than for others. It's quite poor at the kinds of questions that philosophers tackle.

To establish a proof in science, you need to begin with a premise e.g., the earth is round or the earth revolves around the sun then support it with provable facts or empirical evidence, e.g., photographs from space station. You cannot do that in philosophy, e.g., God exists, what is good versus evil, man has a soul, there is a heaven and Hades, etc.

Of course you can do that in philosophy. You can even do experiments. It's just that questions where the answer can't be resolved by a simple reference to physical evidence are the ones that only philosophers can answer, and so tend to be the most studied.

[Jan Pahl]

I believe that here are mixing different things, epistemology of science isn´t methodology of science even if some authors by mistake interchange words and context, the later is what scientist does wile the first are what cross discipline study, Philosophy of science isn´t history of science, "anthropological philosophy" used in "humanities aren´t the same to Science methodology used also in humanities, and at last a huge Caveat, Philosophical systems (in Philosophy), Theories (in science) and theorems (in Math) are for sure completely different "objects" that achieve knowledge in quite different ways.

[Jan Pahl]

Only math make proofs.

Science can validate but never ever can make proofs

Philosophy make strings of arguments but never can validate or make proof´s even using tools like logic or set theory and that is what distinguish for example Anselm God logic argument and "Proof" remade by Gödel and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

[George1949]

“The framework is a mix of empiricism, naturalism and pragmatism, and used to be referred to as Natural Philosophy.”

Wow, where is the empiricism? The definition of empiricism is: “the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. Stimulated by the rise of experimental science, it developed in the 17th and 18th centuries, expounded in particular by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.”

The definition of pragmatism in philosophy is: “an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.”

I am hard pressed to think of one topic in philosophy that is based on pragmatism. For example, the believer’s claim that God and the soul exist, can be proven pragmatically.

The definition of naturalism in philosophy is: “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.”

Again, concepts like God and soul cannot be proven via naturalism. Name one concept in philosophy that can be proven through the concept of naturalism.

What in philosophy can be derived from sense-experience? For example, you can’t see the manmade concepts called God and the soul.

You must be a rationalist. You believe that knowledge can be gained independently of sense experience. Yes, in mathematics, but even it mathematics, it is based on some relation to your senses. Two apples plus two apples is four apples. You can see the four apples.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Philosophy answers no questions that deal with reality or that can be proven with empirical evidence. The only proof in philosophy, except in a formal course in Logic, is personal opinion and conjectures on esoteric subjects that have no basis in reality, e.g., existence of God or gods or the soul or Heaven or Hades, the Devil or angels.

Name one experiment that has been done in philosophy. Name one topic in philosophy that is proven with verifiable evidence. When is the last time you saw a soul or God. Bring God down to earth, surely if he is real versus someone’s opinion, he can appear.

O’ I forgot, God works in mysterious ways, so does apparently the soul. And, so does your argument work in mysterious ways.

[Dark Matter]

Can science function as science without the philosophy of the scientific method?

[Jan Pahl]

philosophy of the scientific method it´s an improper name for philosophy of science.

The scientific method is a complete separable case.

There is not such thing in scientific magazines with titles like "Feyerabend perturbation model on variational calculus to produce a set of differential equations and boundary conditions validating data with Popper falsifiability approach in in vitro null and working hypothesis using genetic markers for possible split of Arabidopsis thaliana in more than one core species" or something like that

[Jan Pahl]

the only tree on which science and philosophy are on the same tree and our cousins is the one in your head only.

check any history of science book

Name one scientific theory that relies on faith in any way; you can’t.

theory by definition is a empirically verified system of hypothesis.

Philosophy can't face the reality that it is a pointless endeavor that deals solely with esoteric topics that are based on faith, versus empirical scientific evidence, i.e., flip of the coin topics like does God or gods exist, which is based solely on one’s faith and faith in the books written by religious fanatics.

I agree that many things in philosophy are nonsensical (in my case Hegel, marxism, postmodernism and Frankfurt school have a lot of it), but faith is another thing, you don´t have to have faith in order to believe in abstract objects

You must have a degree in philosophy to defend it so staunchly. And, if that is your only degree, you must have a job in an unrelated field; unless you teach philosophy in school.

behavioural psychologist science methodology (not science epistemology neither philosophy of science) and consumer behaviour are my degrees academic degrees

Like religion, which is based solely on faith and books written by religious fanatics who are believers in God, philosophy is meaningless.

yes and no, depends on how is made the philosophical system

Name one topic in philosophy that can be proven with scientific evidence. Give up? There isn’t one!

none, that´s why is called philosophy and not science....there is a huge difference between mathematical proofs, scientific methodologies and philosophical systems and the kind of knowledge they produce

[Togo1]

Only math make proofs.

Science can validate but never ever can make proofs

Philosophy make strings of arguments but never can validate or make proof´s even using tools like logic or set theory and that is what distinguish for example Anselm God logic argument and "Proof" remade by Gödel and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Logic and maths are largely indistinguishable at the interface between the two. Mathematicians study logic, and logicians study maths. Philosophy does proofs all the time, it's just that philosophers tend to deal with areas where the initial assumptions (premises) aren't well defined, while maths tends to deal with areas where the initial premises are assumed to be universal. But philosophers do deal with formal proofs, particularly in formal logic, and mathematicians occasionally have to grapple with problems including statements like "1+1=3 for large values of '1'".

Similarly, science validates against observation of the real world, while philosophy tends to validate against premises/assumptions, but it's the same logic either way.

Can science function as science without the philosophy of the scientific method?

In areas which are so well established that you don't need to do any more work on the method, then you don't really need to understand how or why it works, and thus don't really need the philosophy. In the same way you don't need to automotive mechanics to race cars.

In effect you get other people to do the bits you don't worry about. Similarly, a lot of scientists don't do their own maths.

[Jan Pahl]

Only math make proofs.

Science can validate but never ever can make proofs

Philosophy make strings of arguments but never can validate or make proof´s even using tools like logic or set theory and that is what distinguish for example Anselm God logic argument and "Proof" remade by Gödel and Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Logic and maths are largely indistinguishable at the interface between the two. Mathematicians study logic, and logicians study maths. Philosophy does proofs all the time, it's just that philosophers tend to deal with areas where the initial assumptions (premises) aren't well defined, while maths tends to deal with areas where the initial premises are assumed to be universal. But philosophers do deal with formal proofs, particularly in formal logic, and mathematicians occasionally have to grapple with problems including statements like "1+1=3 for large values of '1'".

Similarly, science validates against observation of the real world, while philosophy tends to validate against premises/assumptions, but it's the same logic either way.

Can science function as science without the philosophy of the scientific method?

That´s not the complete picture, proofs in Mathematics make Theorems, there aren´t real theorems in philosophy like the "science theories" that anthropological philosophy make inside Science (specially humanities) aren´t real Theories or real science with the exception of the word use or abuse.

Yes Interdisciplinarity is normal in academia, In Machine learning Analytical Philosophers that are proficient in first order logic can and actually write program codes, statisticians also program inside big data analysis for Machine learning, neuroscientist and psychologist also do the job in neural networks hand by hand with mathematicians and computer scientist, but that not make any of them a computer scientist but inside the interdiscipline world. Language is all the time not well used, for example computer scientist are really a tekné, not a science, the word Mind as equivalente to Cognition or Quale as equivalent to perception it´s not accurate since Cognition and perception are proceses but Mind and Qualia are metaphysical objects

A good example of what I am saying is the faces of Gödel has a mathematician that also worked in philosophy and science, he believed that his godel's incompleteness theorem was a Mathematical proof with all the extras that come with it, It´s simply true ever, but on the contrary his own "modern Gödel version proof" of Anselm Ontological Argument for the existence of God or his statements about the mathematical possibility of empirically not true predictions in General Relativity he knew that wasen´t proofs in the mathematical sense of the word, only the procedures sense of the word

[Togo1]

... Philosophy does proofs all the time, it's just that philosophers tend to deal with areas where the initial assumptions (premises) aren't well defined, while maths tends to deal with areas where the initial premises are assumed to be universal. But philosophers do deal with formal proofs, particularly in formal logic, and mathematicians occasionally have to grapple with problems including statements like "1+1=3 for large values of '1'".

Similarly, science validates against observation of the real world, while philosophy tends to validate against premises/assumptions, but it's the same logic either way.


(Nested quote removed.)

That´s not the complete picture, proofs in Mathematics make Theorems, there aren´t real theorems in philosophy like the "science theories" that anthropological philosophy make inside Science (specially humanities) aren´t real Theories or real science with the exception of the word use or abuse.

Why not?

Rather than just stating the idea over again, can give you give me so idea of what it is you think is the difference between the two? I'm struggling to see what difference you're pointing to between, say, a proof in formal logic and a proof in mathematics.

[Jan Pahl]

Why not?

Rather than just stating the idea over again, can give you give me so idea of what it is you think is the difference between the two? I'm struggling to see what difference you're pointing to between, say, a proof in formal logic and a proof in mathematics.

Formal logic in Math makes theorems, formal logic in Philosophy don´t make real proofs with the (∎) at the end and them can´t make real theorems, also can´t meke theories because theories by definition have empirical data supported by some sort of in vitro or ex vitro methodology.

Real theorem is valid always and the use of mathematics in applied mathematics don´t (science, tekné, ars, philosophy). For example, if you make a algorithm in computer science you have to test it, it isn´t considered valid unless is testable

Proof in Math have necessary and sufficient conditions. You CAN´T say the same the same for philosophy, for example the "Ethica more geometrico demonstrata" form Spinoza uses robust mathematical tools but even if it´s formally true, it isn´t necessary or sufficient that is also the case outside the realm of abstract objects and ethics like all philosophy deals with objects outside the realm of pure abstractions

Togo, You are implying that no other ethical system after Spinoza can be valid unless is a complement of Spinoza "Ethica more geometrico demonstrata" the same way the Euler Lagrange Equations that uses the integration by parts in the one variable case sustains the use of Stokes theorem to derive the Euler-Lagrange equations for more than one variable.

Can´t you see is a contradiction that "Ethica more geometrico demonstrata" and other well proof ethical systems can be true at the same time?

[George1949]

Have you had a class in formal logic?

I had a logic class in college and we used the book “Beginning Logic” by E. J. Lemmon.

The chapters were: “The Propositional Calculus 1”, “The Propositional Calculus 2”, “The Predicate Calculus 1”, and “The Predicate Calculus 2”.

Most people do not know that formal logic deals with Calculus.

Here is the first sentence in the chapter 1: It is not easy, and perhaps not even useful, to briefly explain what logic is.”

Calculus begins with an argument. Typically, an argument consists of certain statements or arguments. Logic’s main concern is the soundness or unsoundness of those and under what conditions those arguments are sound and acceptable and that the conclusions from those arguments are sound.

The first four examples in the book are:

Tweety is a robin;
no robins are migrants; therefore
Tweety is not a migrant.

Oxygen is an element;
No elements are molecular; therefore
oxygen is not molecular.

M has F;
Nothing with F has G, therefore
M does not have G.

Jenkins is a bachelor;
No bachelors are married; therefor
Jenkins is not married.

Some of the basis symbols in formal logic are +

The Modus ponenda ponens (MPP) is a symbol in logic. It states that “given as premises a conditional proposition and the antecedent of that conditional, MPP permits us to draw the consequent of the conditional as a conclusion, as noted in the examples above.

Now that you know formal logic, please show me one philosophical premise that you can put in that format that you can prove using this methodology. You can’t!

[Steve3007]

George1949:

My first philosophy class in college used a book that had the following sections: Determinism, Freedom and Moral Responsibility; Scepticism and the Problem of Induction; Body, Mind and Death; Moral Judgments; The Existence of God; Perception and the Physical World; A prior Knowledge; and, Meaning, Verifications and Metaphysics.

Your approach to this topic seems to be that philosophy, as a whole, is of no use to either science, mathematics or logic, yes? Did you study any Popper, Frege or Russell? Did you study any Analytical Philosophy? Logical Positivism? All that 20th Century stuff?

In your most recent post you mention a class that you took in formal logic. Doesn't the fact that Bertrand Russell, for example, did a lot of work on logic and the foundations of mathematics and is generally labelled as "a philosopher" mean that his particular branch of philosophy, at least, has some relevance?

Most people do not know that formal logic deals with Calculus.

The thing called "propositional calculus" is not quite the same thing as differential and integral calculus. I suspect that's what you have in mind when you say that most people don't know it is dealt with in formal logic? The word "calculus" is used in a wide variety of contexts because it simply means a logical system. Differential and Integral Calculus is a particular branch of mathematics which deals with change.

-- Updated Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:03 pm to add the following --

George,

Out of interest I had a quick look back through some of your other posts in this topic and elsewhere to get some context. You appear to be driven mostly by annoyance with people who believe in god and god-like metaphysical concepts. This seems to have led you to set up a straw man. You appear to object to philosophy, as a subject, because you think that all it really deals with is questions about the existence or otherwise of god. This seems to be based on some philosophy classes that you once took.

Are you prepared to accept that there are some ideas that have occurred to various people over the years that come under the umbrella term "philosophy" but which have nothing to do with speculations about the existence or otherwise of deities?

[Jan Pahl]

Steve3007 the use of logic inside philosophy not implies that logic is a brach of philosophy the same way that the use of differential equations in physic means that differential equations are physics and not math. the obvious role of Interdiscipline not make thing fuzzy but simply interconnected...They are a lot of computer scientist proving things discrete mathematics and in the oposite way, even inside the discussion axioms to constrict math, but all people know what they are doing.

You can be a painter and a musician, and even use ideas of one teckné to apply to the other tekné, but obviously what you produce have differences, you cant create a music paint. So please, people like Russell or Gottlob Frege that were philosophers and pure mathematicians need to be understood well....

I understand now why philosophers have a very hard time trying to differentiate philosophy and epistemology of science (a philosophy branch) with methodology, in-vitro and ex vitro non naïve empiricism with applied maths (a science branch) between them, Hence distinguish Science from Philosophy or like here with logic, Math and Analytical Philosophy

Maybe is because in pre-academia times From Ionia all the way to the Renaissance there wasn't a real sense of different phenomena, like the implications of a proof in math and a philosophical "proof"

[Jan Pahl]

my last post was for George1949 not to steve....sorry