Philosophy Discussion Forums

Nick_A wrote:

Dewey wrote:
Science is about the structure of reality; philosophy is about the pursuit of happiness, the ultimate end. The former does not, and cannot, tell us what we ought to do in order to pursue happiness. Such “oughts” as it proposes are just hypothetical; that is, they are not categorical imperatives. They only tell us what to do as a means to an end, but they cannot tell us what that end should be.

If the above theory is sound (It’s based on quick and short study by yours truly.), we should confine our discussions of the philosophy of science to questions of how to employ the means derived through science so as to best achieve the ends determined through philosophy.

Well if philosophy is the pursuit of happiness, would the perfect masturbation machine be the ultimate union of philosophy and science?

Nick_A, It's obvious you haven't learned a thing about what you're supposed to pursue to be happy. (Psst - where can I get one of those machines?)

Well if philosophy is the pursuit of happiness, would the perfect masturbation machine be the ultimate union of philosophy and science?

Yes, or the ultimate happy pill, which already exists I guess.But happiness is a poor substitute for engaging with life.

"philosophy is about the pursuit of happiness"

No, it's the pursuit of wisdom (which runs very fast, by the way) and wisdom may not bring happiness - ultimately it may, but few of us catch that particular species of wisdom.

Nick_A wrote:Well if philosophy is the pursuit of happiness, would the perfect masturbation machine be the ultimate union of philosophy and science?

This is a more of an insight into the joys of your life than any of us wanted (or deserved).

Science:

2+2=4

The Philosophy of Science:

Two plus two equals four.

Scott wrote:What is the difference between science and the philosophy of science?

Most basically, I suppose the difference is that science refers to the acquisition of knowledge by using empirical study and experimentation (i.e. the scientific method) whereas philosophy of science asks and seeks to answer questions about science itself using contemplation and thoughtful analysis (i.e. philosophizing).

What do you think? Do you have a clearer, more detailed or more accurate explanation of the difference between science and the philosophy of science?

Hi Scott,

this is a very interesting question! I would try to answer it as follows:

There are many philosophers (and students of philosophy) who think that philosophy itself is nothing else than philosophy of science. These people are not interested in the question of what is the difference between philosophy and science.

I think that there is a difference between philosophy and science, so I am also interested in what differenciates philosophy of science and science.

Now, why are many people convinced that philosophy is philosophy of science? Well, they think that philosophy has to work scientifically in order to stay at today's universities. If philosophy was not a science too, there would be no jobs for philosophers in universities and no money for philosophy.

I did not provide a definition in my answer to your question, but I did give a suggestion where to look for one:

You defined philosophy of science and science by naming their activities:

- science = acquisition of knowledge by using empirical study and experimentation
- philosophy of science = asking and answering questions about science itself using contemplation and thoughtful analysis

My suggestion lies in that a better definition would also refer to:

WHO carries out these activities;
in which kind of social framework;
and with the help of whose funding.

Best wishes
philohof

Scott wrote:What is the difference between science and the philosophy of science

Science is the collection of facts. The philosophy of science is how we interpret those facts: a battle about the perspective from which we may conscientiously evaluate and use the findings of science.

'Science' is a systematic method via which one can approach a problem. It is based upon careful experimentation and/or observation.

The 'philosophy of science' is a trickier one, as it refers to the philosophical premiss which underlies the practice of scientific method. In other words, it decides what interpretation will be put upon data. It is thus an extremely important and powerful force in science.

There are (only) two alternative Philosophies of Science: Idealism and Materialism. The former claims that Mind came first and somehow made Matter; the latter claims that Matter came first and somehow made Mind.

Very roughly speaking, up till Darwin, Idealism was the ruling premiss (supported or dictated by Church dogma). After Darwin, most scientists dumped Idealism and went wholesale for Materialism.

One day it will be seen that they went too far. Just because the Church was demonstrably wrong about Geocentricity, and All Animals Being Made Once and For All, this did not automatically mean it was wrong about absolutely everything else; and it certainly did not justify the Materialist decision to automaticall write off every paranormal event as fraudulent.