Philosophy + Science Options

My purpose of this thread is to see which side you occultists lean more on, what your beliefs are on the theory, etc... I believe that Science or Philosophy without one or the other are pretty much pointless and achieve not as much, though hand-in-hand work great. I had an argument with a scientist last night during thanksgiving and he was stating that Science proves Philosophy wrong? I found that to be a completely stupid remark as Science is practically the answer to an event which occurs and Philosophy is the question to why it occurs. Anyways lets discuss and argue.

It has been noted by Einstein's quote:

"Religion without science is ignorant, but science without religion is blind"

- Thank you Acid for having that on your profile it helped me decide on this post (IMG:style_emoticons/default/Lighten.gif) -

Now first lets start by defining Science and Philosophy, just to keep clear on what they truly are:

Science: A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

So basically science is the study of the "why" something happens based on the facts of it happening.

Philosophy: The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. Any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study. A system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza. The critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, esp. with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

Philosophy is basically the pursuit of what "will happen" and how it will happen. Philosophy leads our thoughts.

My beliefs:

Philosophy has always transcended science and always will; for philosophy deals with causes while science deals with effects. A scientist observes the result of nature's work while a philosopher speculates as to its cause. Many things which philosophy has taught for thousands of years are today being demonstrated by science. The two should really go hand in hand; for one deals with causes and the other with effects. True philosophy and true science will some day meet on a common basis, and, working together, will give to the world a theology of reality.

Conclusion: Philosophy and Science should always go hand in hand for the best effects and understanding of the laws of this universe and thus existance in that matter. Philosophy will always lead and Science will always prove.

This is all based on what i've read and understood of works by famous and profound philosophers and scientists, feel free to state your beliefs on this.

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Nov 25 2006, 12:42 AM

Greetings DeathStalker and Joseph,

You've both made some extremely valid points, I just wish to add my own thoughts.

Before dealing with such a question we must be sure we are on the same level of interpretation. For me when you say “science” I think of a wide spectrum of practices concerned with deciphering the processes of cause and effect. These include philosophy and magic. However, for purposes of this discussion it would be best to limit ‘science’ to the physical sciences as even the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.) are a composite drawing from both the abstract and the empirical…. Within this definition philosophy and science are polar opposites as neither can be used to explain the other.

Philosophy is constructive in nature; it births theories/ideas which are refined into models to explain the processes and abstractions of life. We might say that in philosophy the model explains the cause or effect. Thus we get:

Theory – Model – Cause/Effect

Science is deconstructive; it reduces a phenomenon to its most basic observable components in order to explain it. A true empiricist will never use a theory (i.e. the hypothesis) or a model to prove an event as this would be considered circular reasoning. Instead, it is the theory that must be proven through a working model of the observable components of cause and effect. Thus in science:

Cause/Effect – Model- Theory

In the end we are looking at two processes of cognition (an alpha and an omega) which are both concerned with understanding order and in a metaphysical sense are two sides of the same coin…. I hope this is not too convoluted.

Greetings DeathStalker and Joseph,

You've both made some extremely valid points, I just wish to add my own thoughts.

Before dealing with such a question we must be sure we are on the same level of interpretation. For me when you say “science” I think of a wide spectrum of practices concerned with deciphering the processes of cause and effect. These include philosophy and magic. However, for purposes of this discussion it would be best to limit ‘science’ to the physical sciences as even the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.) are a composite drawing from both the abstract and the empirical…. Within this definition philosophy and science are polar opposites as neither can be used to explain the other.

Philosophy is constructive in nature; it births theories/ideas which are refined into models to explain the processes and abstractions of life. We might say that in philosophy the model explains the cause or effect. Thus we get:

Theory – Model – Cause/Effect

Science is deconstructive; it reduces a phenomenon to its most basic observable components in order to explain it. A true empiricist will never use a theory (i.e. the hypothesis) or a model to prove an event as this would be considered circular reasoning. Instead, it is the theory that must be proven through a working model of the observable components of cause and effect. Thus in science:

Cause/Effect – Model- Theory

In the end we are looking at two processes of cognition (an alpha and an omega) which are both concerned with understanding order and in a metaphysical sense are two sides of the same coin…. I hope this is not too convoluted.

We all seem to be agreeing on the facts that the "science" we are dealing with, and philosophy (minor to religion), are essentially better oft in one.

I've found no points to argue against, though for the more "spiritual" mindset this theory may seem understandable, the more scientific or "faithful" will come into disagreement.