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

Science itself is the emperical, inductive study of everything. It uses the process of formulating hypotheses based on deductive reasoning about prior evidence then conduct inductive studies to test as many samples as possible. Once enough tests are done a new conclusion, possibly the same or close to the original hypothesis, is drawn.

In order for inductive reasoning to be valid it must not.
1. Make hasty generalizations - assumptions from poor test samples. Also called inductive leaps, or conclusions about other test samples after only testing a few. The only time inductive leaps are acceptable is when testing all possible samples is impossible or only a few samples exist.

2. Use faulty statistics. Statistics can be made to say just about anything in the right conditions. If one uses stats as evidence of a conclusion they should consider who conducted them (they may be biased or incompetent), who or what was studied, how many samples were studied and if the samples studied are representative of the majority.

3. Cite biased, incompetent authorities or use name dropping. Naming dropping is where one cites authorities without providing anything to back it up. (its like saying "so and so said this and they're an authority in such and such a field so what they say must be true")

4. Make "post hoc" fallacies -where one assumes one event triggered another unrelated event and has no evidence to prove it, other than the time frame in which they occured (like crossing the path of black cat leads to bad luck or, a spell one casted caused them to win the lottery).

5. Must not use hersay in conclusion. That is what one draws their conclusion from is based on reliably testable samples, not opinions or subjectivism.

In the case of science, inductive reasoning must also follow the scientific process.

Philosophy is the presuit of wisdom in fields such as metaphysics, logic, ethics, virtues, mysticism, religion, psychology and all other sciences. Philosophers, while often dreamers who are open minded to reasonable ideas, are also rationalist. Like scientist, philosophers seek wisdom based on information and conclusions that do not commit any of the above 5 inductive fallacies. Alchemist, mystics or practicing occultists in general should also adhere to the scientific process for more accurate conclusions.

Given the above information, what makes a scientist is one who follows the inductive, scientific processes and what makes a philosopher is one who persues wisdom using the same processes. In this case A = B, B = A, True scientists are philosophers and visa versa.

2. Use faulty statistics. Statistics can be made to say just about anything in the right conditions. If one uses stats as evidence of a conclusion they should consider who conducted them (they may be biased or incompetent), who or what was studied, how many samples were studied and if the samples studied are representative of the majority.

3. Cite biased, incompetent authorities or use name dropping. Naming dropping is where one cites authorities without providing anything to back it up. (its like saying "so and so said this and they're an authority in such and such a field so what they say must be true")

.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ac42.gif)

Greetings Acid 09,

I liked your five must nots of the Scientific Theory, however I selected two to comment on for a particular reason.

Number 2: You stated that if one uses statistics as evidence of a conclusion they should consider who conducted them (they may be biased or incompetent).

I would agree with this statement in that the person who had done previous studies from which the statistics were drawn must have followed an emprical rather than theoretical approach to the observation and recording of data. The empirical would be evidence from past experiences and direct observation rather than a scientist implying that the statistics they choose to use must have been of a methodical nature because a report states it did.

Yet this brings another fact to light. In many researches of Scientific Methods and Experimentation the scientist or observer builds upon the gathered statistics and previous works of scientists before them. Just as philosophers build upon their philosophical views by studying those that have come before them. It would be difficult indeed if we as modern day humans had to redo each phase of the automobile before we actually built one in the automovile factories. For instance, if the wheel had to be reinvented each time that a car was to be made, then the wagon type frame of the frontiers, then, the combustion engine, etc... If we as a race had to reduplicate each phase of every aspect of our modern day society, we would never have technologies that we have today. We would never advance because we would be trying to reduplicate each and every aspect of all trades, experiences, and research.

My second point would be that, according to your number 2; you have stated that it is important to consider who conducted the previous experiements or who theorized the previous philophical viewpoint. Then in Number 3 you state: ,not to use name dropping without proving anything to back it up. In this case you would almost be contradicting your statement in number 2 as I have tried to clarify my point in a friendly, yet, debateable fashion. One of the reasons we use references such as names and text from somewone who has came before us, is I wouil say, to show that noteworthy individuals that have paved the way for our emergence from the dark ages have done research in these fields according to the best of their capability, at the time they did the research, or theorization. Many of the facts we take for granted today were from men or women who at the time of their existence were thought mad, such as the scientific fact that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System, but the Sun is the center of the Solar System. Galileo proved this in the middle ages and then had to recant his discovery because the church denied his facts as heresy, and was going to imprison him unless he publically denounced his beliefs.

Many Philosophers were driven from their teaching positions at Universities in their days because the clergy thought they were Atheists, such as Johann Gottlieb Fichte, yet, in reading his works he speaks of God more often than not, just in a philosophical sense. One of the strong points we have in this day and age is Information Technologies, with such information at our finger tips we can acquire a vast amount of knowledge in any given field, many Scientific Resrchers place their works in Scientific Journals, Text, and even E-Books, so people can form their own conclusion. If we were to refuse the use of knowledge for the sheer reason it was proposed by someone in an age where their methods were questionable, or because we haven't reproven their research, then simply, there would be a great void of knowledge for which we would have to reexperience as a modern race to see if we came to the same empirical evidence as the researchers who came before us.

This is not to say that we should take the word of all who profess knowledge, or experience in a given field, yet at times we can come to a determination by reasoning whether the information or statistical data would be reliable, or worthless by finding the Scientific Researcher who pioneered in that area and discovering from their past work the evidence of a given theorum. And in discovering similar experiences forming an hypothosis that if they were correct in certain aspects of the work they dedicated their lives to, then perhaps they were correct in a great many things with which they studied, researched, and expounded about.

Just some of my Thoughts,
Respectfully,
Helel (Joseph)

This post has been edited by Joseph: Dec 15 2006, 09:22 PM