16 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyPhilosophy cannot describe science with certainty.
It means sometimes philosophy and science can overlap.
Science cannot describe philosophy, it's not within its domain.
Once philosophers philosophized that the atom is in-dividable, hence its name, 'atom'. It turned out that philosophy was wrong.
But philosophy can forego science by make guessings. Science can be inspired by philosophy.
But so can any fictional writer. Would we have space travel today without Jules Verne?
So both domains, science and philosophy, can inspire eachother, but the domains doesn't overlap.
16 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasOK
Philosophy cannot describe science with certainty.
Science cannot describe philosophy, it's not within its domain.
Once philosophers philosophized that the atom is in-dividable, hence its name, 'atom'. It turned out that philosophy was wrong.
But philosophy can forego science by make guessings. Science can be inspired by philosophy.
But so can an ...[text shortened]... So both domains, science and philosophy, can inspire eachother, but the domains doesn't overlap.
16 Jun 17
5 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne must be cautious of dictionary definitions of words that have technical meanings that differ from the usual meaning given by the average layperson. I have on more than one occasion heard (on TV, not in a dictionary) a layperson's description of what "chaos theory" is as being "a theory of randomness", which is wrong (it is a theory of how the outcome of a process can be unpredictable even if there is absolutely NO randomness in it! ) . If some dictionary definitions reflect that kind of sloppy layperson meaning, you cannot trust them to give the correct technical meaning.
By most dictionary definitions, science IS philosophy.
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by humyWell I would still say that science is a branch of philosophy even outside dictionary definitions.
One must be cautious of dictionary definitions of words that have technical meanings that differ from the usual meaning given by the average layperson.
Would you perfer Wikipedia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
16 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo. As a subset.
Synonymously?
You cannot prove anything with philosophy alone.
You cannot prove anything outside mathematics and logic. But the study of logic is a subset of philosophy. If anything philosophy starts with logic and proceeds from there. So IF you can prove anything, you will do it with philosophy.
People try to reason philosophically what was before BigBang - but fail.
Thus, one can reasonably conclude that it is, at this time, impossible to know what happened before the big bang. A resounding win for philosophy (and fail for religion).
Note that science can't answer the question either.
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's why the atom was thought not to be divisible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) ...
That's why non-euclidian rooms came in so late.
That's why flogiston and ether was believed to exist.
Philosophy inspires science people, that's all.
16 Jun 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasNonsense.
That's why the atom was thought not to be divisible.
That's why non-euclidian rooms came in so late.
That's why flogiston and ether was believed to exist.
Philosophy inspires science people, that's all.
Science IS philosophy.
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
The phlogiston theory is a superseded scientific theory ....
The idea of the indivisible atom was so useful that it was used by science (specifically chemistry). You are totally wrong that philosophers thought that atoms were indivisible. Its the other way around. Philosophers suggested there might be particles that were indivisible and chemists at some point used that concept to discover what we, today, call atoms. And to all intents and purposes, in chemistry, they ARE indivisible, and it remains a useful concept.
In physics there is an ongoing search to understand what are the smallest indivisible units (if such exist). I believe that the current theories tend to have specific conserved properties such as spin, charge etc rather than what we might call an atom.
As for non-euclidian rooms, I really don't know what you are on about there, but I am willing to bet you are confused.
16 Jun 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Atoms_in_philosophy" (says, among other things):
You are totally wrong that philosophers thought that atoms were indivisible.[/b]
Atoms in philosophy
The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old idea, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The word "atom" was coined by ancient Greek philosophers. However, these ideas were founded in philosophical and theological reasoning rather than evidence and experimentation. As a result, their views on what atoms look like and how they behave were incorrect. They also could not convince everybody, so atomism was but one of a number of competing theories on the nature of matter. It was not until the 19th century that the idea was embraced and refined by scientists, when the blossoming science of chemistry produced discoveries that only the concept of atoms could explain.
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasSo basically confirming what I said, and demonstrating that what you said was nonsense.
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Atoms_in_philosophy" (says, among other things):
Atoms in philosophy
The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old idea, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The word "atom" was coined by ancient Greek philosophers. However, these ideas were founded in philosophical and theo ...[text shortened]... ossoming science of chemistry produced discoveries that only the concept of atoms could explain.
16 Jun 17
Originally posted by FabianFnasWell I found your failure to read my response just as offensive. I took the time to explain why what you said about atoms was incorrect and a clear misunderstanding of philosophy, history, science and more, and instead of admitting your error you quote Wikipedia at me - and whats more, what you quote supports what I said.
Now you got offensive so I quit here.
Nonsense is a strong word. I take offense.
So how should I politely say that all three statements you made above with regards to philosophy are outright wrong?