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,

Concerning Philosophy and Science, Philosphy in times where Johannes Gottlieb Fichte followed after Immanuel Kant was in a great time of transition coming forth out of Critical Philosophy to Metaphysical Idealism.

Philosophy was summed up by Kant in an Anology ofThe Box, he stayed with this theme for many years. Trying to Theoretically determine if the Box was a Thing-In-Itself or if it could only be proven to exist by Empirical Evidence, which is Objective Knowledge formed on the Scientific Method of Experimentation.

Yet in Philosphy in my opinon one seeks to go ever deeper to discover "How is a thing," Is it a Thing-In-Itself, is it Transcendent that it contains both "Subjective" and "Objective" Elements able to show forth its existence, or does it exist only as an Empirical Physical Manifestation devoid of deeper realization.

To me Philosophy is as says Fichte and Hegel after him, Pure Reasoning,
while Science is a Skeptical Rationality determined by Objective means.

I to believe one day there hall be a type thinking that Transcends both Philosophy and Science and Unites the two to form a Higher form of Mental Evolution for Mankind. I believe it has existed in certain times in the distant past when men relied more on various forms of Reasoning and rationality combined.

Respectfully,
Helel (Joseph)

Greetings,

I got to doing a bit of investigating on the Nature of the question concerning the Philosophy of Science. Here is a little of what I have found:

On the web search called "About" under Philosophy of Science it states: "Science can be characterized as a method of obtaining reliable-though not infallible-knowledge about the universe around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it happens."

In a book called "A History of Philosophy" by Frederick Copleston in chapter 1, pg. 37 it states Johanne Gottlieb Fichte's belief that Philosophy is the Science of Sciences, that it is the Knowledge of Knowledge, or Doctrine of Knowledge. Fichte holds to the belief of Wissenschaftslehre-In other words Philosophy is the Basic Science. Hence the fundamental proposition of Philosophy must be indemonstratable and self-evidently true. All other propositions will possess only a mediate certainty, derived from it, whereas it must be immediately certain. For if its fundamental proposition were demonstratable in another science, Philosophy would not be the Basic Science.

Respectfully,
Helel (Joseph)

I believe philosophy to be more of an "individual religion", though I do not agree of it becoming a cult-like mentality.

You have nice points though I like them.

I'll persue other beliefs and sciences to try and contradict my present beliefs, but for now, i'm comfortable being a neutral philosopher.

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Dec 10 2006, 01:54 PM

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.

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.

Agreed…

though for the more "spiritual" mindset this theory may seem understandable, the more scientific or "faithful" will come into disagreement.

I also agree with this since the more scientific or “faithful” are by definition embracing the polarity, and those with a more “spiritual” or metaphysical mind frame see the polarity as an expression of the underlying unity.

This brings to mind the Kabbalistic interpretation of the ten sephiroth as the means through which the divine passes from unity to plurality. It is the task of the one initiated into the mystery of the Kabbalah to ascend the tree of plurality back to the point of unity (Kether)…blah, blah, blah

Anyway, Good topic! Hopefully more people will respond.

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.

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.

That makes much sense, thank you for your imput. I never thought about it that way.

This post has been edited by DeathStalker: Dec 15 2006, 09:04 PM

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

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.

perhaps someone else said this before me, i only read your inital post, but i tend to agree with you ... although i do think that often the science can be "adjusted" to prove a philosophy ... e.g., the facts will be found that will prove the story ... so at times, i think science must be like philosophy without a conclusion to look at merely what is rather than what we expect or project ... so following the science or following the philosophy can lead to truth, and not following anything can too.

great discussion.

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.

There are actually several methods. I can't remember all of them but for example the survey method - telemarketers, or those "how was your business?" surveys at Pizza Huts or some other place. I'll have to consult my logic notes from the previous semester to check up on that. I do know that each method has its advantages and disadvantages and for some things its alomst impossible to use statistics as anything more than scientific conjecture. Like statistics involving people and say violence on tv. Its very hard to be able to conduct a survey to find one answer and not have somebody, just open-minded and interested do a different survey and come up with opposing answers.

Then in Number 3 you state: ,not to use name dropping without proving anything to back it up.

Name dropping has nothing to do with statistics. It's trying to prove/support an agruement by mentioning a person's name as though they support a certain view point without actually citing anything they said or provide any information that leads to what they actually said. Its using sources without citation. usually done by people who are lazy or who simply know that there is no real support from the names they drop. In any arguement there are three ways to appeal to an audience - reason, emotion and credibility. Name dropping is attempting appealing to credibility to prove and arguement. Its a logical fallacy for very apparent reasons.

Something to consider in the case of people who claim "God" or some divine being told them so... many religious philosophers are actually religious scholars trying to justifiy their beliefs and possibly win a little support or fame. In the eyes of real scientist and philosophers (or really anybody who can read between the lines), what such people say may be interesting, but it doesn't prove anything and really is pretty piss poor for evidence too.