How philosophy is different from science and math

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
Philosophy is different from science and from mathematics. Unlike science it doesn’t rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought. And unlike mathematics it has no formal methods of proof. It is done just by asking questions, arguing, trying out ideas and thinking of possible arguments against them, and wondering how our concepts really work.

https://drb.ie/articles/problems-problems/
 
BidenPresident said:
Philosophy is different from science and from mathematics. Unlike science it doesn’t rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought. And unlike mathematics it has no formal methods of proof. It is done just by asking questions, arguing, trying out ideas and thinking of possible arguments against them, and wondering how our concepts really work.
Click to expand...

I generally disagree.

Philosophy is the application of logic which is integral to science. Science is the discipline of observation and analysis. The analysis step requires logic which is the core of philosophy.

Philosophy is the logic and inferential infrastructure that underlies the language of science (math) and forms the understory of how data is analyzed.
 
NovoJank said:
I generally disagree.

Philosophy is the application of logic which is integral to science. Science is the discipline of observation and analysis. The analysis step requires logic which is the core of philosophy.

Philosophy is the logic and inferential infrastructure that underlies the language of science (math) and forms the understory of how data is analyzed.
Click to expand...

Philosophy does not reduce to logic.
 
NovoJank said:
That's why I said Philosophy is the application of logic. Logic is the language of philosophy. Like mathematics is the language of science.

Philosophy without logic is just talking without meaning.
Click to expand...

No, logic is not the language of philosophy. Logic is just about proper inference, formal reasoning.
 
I would like someone to read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, and then explain to me how they would derive Aristotle's ontology and system of virtues and values by doing laboratory experiments and mathmatical analysis.
 
BidenPresident said:
Philosophy is different from science and from mathematics. Unlike science it doesn’t rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought. And unlike mathematics it has no formal methods of proof. It is done just by asking questions, arguing, trying out ideas and thinking of possible arguments against them, and wondering how our concepts really work.

https://drb.ie/articles/problems-problems/
Click to expand...

Scientists of the late 20th and 21st century are not trained in formal logic.

They are trained in the empirical inductive method.

Formal logic has essentially been dropped from education, except in theorems of Euclid found sometimes in highschool geometry textbooks.

Formal logic and theories of knowledge are now almost exclusively taught in advanced undergraduate philosopy classes.

Physicists from Einstein to Sean Carroll have lamented the lack of training in formal logic and philosopy of science in modern scientific education.
 
BidenPresident said:
What is real? Can I know whether the universe was caused or not?
Click to expand...

"Pure reason" is exactly as effective at answering these questions as science. In other words: neither one can.

What is a good life; what role do friends play in that?
Click to expand...

That's easily explicable by biology and psychology. But just because phrases like "good life" are emotionally fraught we often think there's something "deeper" to that. But it fails at the outset since there is not real "definition" of what a good life even is.

I'm not denying that thoughts and emotions are real. I'm just saying that there's nothing particularly metaphysical or even beyond the realm of the physical in these things.

I can conceive of a perpetual motion machine. That doesn't mean I "know" anything. I am just imagining it. That's kind of what I'm driving at when I suggest that mere "concepts" are not in and of themselves "knowledge".
 
Cypress said:
Scientists of the late 20th and 21st century are not trained in formal logic.

They are trained in the empirical inductive method.
Click to expand...

Which is, itself heavily underlaid by logic. The inferences around rejecting or failing to reject the null hypothesis is the core of inferential statistics but it follows very strict rules of logic.

Physicists from Einstein to Sean Carroll have lamented the lack of training in formal logic and philosopy of science in modern scientific education.
Click to expand...

Thankfully the formal logic is still implicit in the underlying techniques.
 
NovoJank said:
That's why I said Philosophy is the application of logic. Logic is the language of philosophy. Like mathematics is the language of science.

Philosophy without logic is just talking without meaning.
Click to expand...

Some philosophy is dogmatic, not logic. Maybe the way you apply it is through logic (maybe, not a certainty) but the practice of this itself does not flow from logic and has no systemic practice like the scientific method. In scientific method, and in the end in logic, a right answer can be achieved, but in philosophy there is no "right" answer achievable, only more argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top