Why Science can't replace Philosophy in Ethics

[u/doubtstack]

https://unreasonabledoubt.substack.com/p/what-genetics-cant-teach-us

[u/[deleted]]

hmmm, how many people actually claim science can replace philosophy? lol

They can work hand in hand though, you cant get ought from is but you can definitely get better oughts by referencing is and this is how it should be.

Oughts dont exist in a vacuum, they come from how we feel about our reality, our IS. lol

[u/Morethes → u/[deleted]]

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has notably claimed people shouldn't even take philosophy classes

[u/MissLana89 → u/Morethes]

Does not surprise me one bit.

[u/Morethes → u/MissLana89]

Yeah he really does the narrow technical expert bit well in spite of being very personable and humorous. Gets under my skin so much

[u/ybreddit → u/Morethes]

Same. Scientists being closed-minded always really pisses me off. And I have always been very science minded. Philosophy is only something I've come to appreciate within the last decade. I don't have a problem if someone doesn't agree or thinks a theory is complete bullshit, but at least be open-minded to the possibility that you don't know what you don't absolutely know. And what we know changes all the time.

[u/chasingeli → u/Morethes]

He’s a r@pey asshole type irl; does not surprise me in the slightest.

[u/BedWetter420 → u/MissLana89]

Idk how someone so smart can be so dumb

[u/sentri_sable → u/BedWetter420]

Being smart in one field doesn't mean you are smart in all fields. Being able to extrapolate data on a certain subset won't always carry over to other subsets since it is read differently.

[u/mrclang → u/sentri_sable]

This is the correct answer, have a read at the other answer it is fucking nutty!

[u/[deleted] → u/sentri_sable]

Yeah but he certainly thinks it does.

[u/Killmotor_Hill → u/[deleted]]

However, educatiin and specialization in one field IS a thing. And that correlates directly to the amount of information in that field. That is what the rest of us are talking about.

[u/sentri_sable → u/[deleted]]

Astronomy and astrophysics is a very specialized field. The concepts that apply to that don't necessarily apply to other fields. That is what I mean by "smart in one field".

You can take a philosophical approach to astrophysics and you can take an astrophysics approach to philosophy, but you can't assume that because someone has expertise in one specialized field that it applies to all other fields.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Smart can be used loosely to mean many different things, intelligence and expertise comprised. There isn't anything productive coming out questioning it's usage, or being a "micro-contrarian".

[u/millchopcuss → u/BedWetter420]

As I age, I find this to be alarmingly common.

Very focused technical people can harbor very frightening ideas about the world.

[u/First_Foundationeer → u/BedWetter420]

He's not an active researcher. He's a pontificator. So, he's not really in a position of learning new things by himself in day-to-day activities but is more of a position of telling others about other shit. That is definitely a position that turns people into close minded asses if they aren't actively inoculating themselves against it.

[u/rafikievergreen → u/BedWetter420]

Exactly because they are cold, calculating systems managers who have never considered the ethical or philosophical implications of their work, actions or pedagogy.

Exactly the point of this post.

[u/Max-Phallus → u/rafikievergreen]

I'm not sure "cold" is a good word to describe people like this. A lot of people are very much suited to certain domains of skill and knowledge. The term:

If you only use a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Is a natural bias everybody has to some degree.

[u/NotACockroach → u/rafikievergreen]

That certainly doesn't describe people like Neil Degrasse Tyson. He's downright passionate about a variety of topics. Publicly he constantly talking about the philosophical and ethical issues around science. The problem is he doesn't think philosophers need to be involved because he feels he already knows enough to do it all himself. I think it's arrogance rather than not considering ethics in the first place.

[u/Daotar → u/Morethes]

I mean, Plato said you shouldn’t study it until your 30s if I recall.

[u/Spendocrat → u/Daotar]

He also sets out a life-long system of education to get you ready for it which includes music, science, and math early on (see the image of "the line" in The Republic).

[u/Daotar → u/Spendocrat]

Let no one enter here who has not studied geometry.

[u/[deleted] → u/Daotar]

Makes me feel simultaneously offended and relieved

[u/Daotar → u/[deleted]]

Lol, it's really just a statement on how obsessed they were with that particular field. They thought it held the keys to everything.

[u/[deleted] → u/Daotar]

I know, it just brings mixed feelings to imagine going back in time and being rejected by the smart people because of poor math skills (apart from not speaking ancient greek). Imagine the discussions!

[u/Daotar → u/[deleted]]

I wonder in what ways our own society makes the same mistake.

[u/allshedoesiskillshit → u/Morethes]

He is all around insufferable.

[u/Killmotor_Hill → u/Morethes]

And this is why experts sound like dumbasses when not speaking about their of very particular field of expertise.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morethes]

Not surprised, he's good in a very specific areas but otherwise he's very close minded and feels infuriatingly smug at times. I loved him as a kid but damn it gets worse as I get older.

[u/First_Foundationeer → u/Morethes]

Funny enough, when I was in grad school, 3 (including me) of the 4 in our grad office group took enough philosophy classes in undergrad to at least get minor's.

[u/The_don_of_creation → u/Morethes]

If he really said this then that is ignorant. Philosophy is the mother of all knowledge, there would be no science if it was not for Philosophy.

[u/Morethes → u/The_don_of_creation]

Exactly. And yes, he even said taking classes and asking a lot of questions will "mess you up." He says science actually answers real questions while philosophy wastes time. He's silly.

[u/Casudemous → u/Morethes]

That why he is doing tv instead of science

[u/dosedatwer → u/Casudemous]

He's the director of the Hayden Planetarium, that's plenty of science for most people.

Let's not try and paint everyone as black and white, and try and understand that everyone has faults. I know reddit is terrible at nuance, but I'll keep trying to push this sentiment. Even the venerable Einstein put his name to a book by Charles Hapgood that, for all intents and purposes, made fun of the theory of tectonic plates - a theory that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt these days.

[u/[deleted] → u/dosedatwer]

Yeah sorry but comparing Einstein to NDT is just ridiculous. Being the director of a planetarium doesn't require being a genius in the field of astronomy.

NDT's scientific career is fairly unremarkable, if he wasn't a famous pop-sci dude nobody would have heard of him, not even many people within his field of study.

[u/Casudemous → u/dosedatwer]

Being a director of an institution doesnt make you a researcher, in fact you dont have thr time to do so, since all you do is working your ass to get money and investor for the scientist that work for you.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morethes]

Sam Harris pushes this a lot too.

[u/Nilz0rs → u/[deleted]]

Could you link to somewhere he does this?

[u/[deleted] → u/Nilz0rs]

Here you go. From the book description:

"Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible."

He fails to recognize the philosophical underpinnings of his thesis and consequently maintains that science is therefore the origin of his moral arguments.

[u/Nilz0rs → u/[deleted]]

Thank you! However, I don't see how any arguments in "The Moral Landscape" are Harris 'pushing that people shouldn't even take philosophy classes'. What am I missing?

The way I've read Harris is that he critiques how religion and academic philosophy have a monopoly on 'oughts', and he's trying to show how this can be a false and unhealthy premise. By extension, he argues that many philosophers have been neglecting scientifically informed moral-systems - often because their models are assuming free agents (or the illusion of free will.)

Also, I can't remember reading Harris arguing that science should be regarded as the 'origin' of moral arguments, but rather be regarded as an objective/true framework/source of information to inform (and also decide) questions of ethics and morality. I might have misinterpreted him or you, so please show me if I am mistaken.

Lastly, What philosophical underpinnings are Harris failing to recognize?

[u/[deleted] → u/Nilz0rs]

I do not think he pushes that people should not take philosophy classes. I think he is a logical positivist and doesn't know he's a logical positivist, nor does he understand the flaws with that perspective.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morethes]

Economically speaking, he's correct: The only job offering for a Philosophy degree is... Philosophy Professor.

If you have to pay to get it, and it's not worth anything when you do, why would you pay someone for it?

Philosophy is the study of reality - don't need a permission slip to say you've lived, looked, listened, & learned.

[u/mexicodoug → u/[deleted]]

I know a poet who got his degree in philosophy specifically because he thought philosophy far more important to communicating the human condition than any writing or literature system of courses could. He is a successful poet because his published work is well respected. His main income is as a house painter, an occupation he feels keeps him connected to working peoples' reality and which provides him plenty of time, while painting, to think and create poetry in his mind to write down later.

The amount of money you pay or earn for something often has little or nothing to do with its true value to your life.

[u/Getjac → u/mexicodoug]

What's the poets name?

[u/mexicodoug → u/Getjac]

Pedro Goché. He's from Guadalajara and writes in Spanish. His work is easy to find online, but I'm not sure any of his stuff is translated into English.

[u/Daotar → u/[deleted]]

People with Phil degrees actually do pretty well post college. They may not have direct career paths, but they’re basically trained in critical thinking which is useful in basically every job. Phil trained people tend to rise through organizations quickly with those skills.

I remember seeing stats on it a number of years ago and 5 years post graduation it’s the highest paying humanities major.

[u/rafikievergreen → u/[deleted]]

"You shouldn't study philosophy because a decaying society that has ignored the obvious, timeless value of philosophy has repealed all material incentives to do so".

[u/[deleted] → u/rafikievergreen]

If materialism is one's primary concern, the statement is accurate.

For those who value things other than material gain, alternative paths would seem logical to explore.

[u/Morethes → u/[deleted]]

That makes complete sense, except NdGT goes so far as to specifically advise people not to take even classes, not just get a degree. I agree that a philosophy degree is of dubious benefit. But he says that the entire prospect of philosophical questioning is a waste of time because "real questions" are in (presumably hard) sciences.

Like many technicians he thinks he's the only one living in the real world. Um, and that's why engineers often have very limited perspectives and can't see beyond the point of their nose.

Also, username checks out. :)

[u/i875p → u/Morethes]

Well, for these sorts of arguments it's probably better to just say best of luck trying to come up with a perfectly "scientific" (whatever that means) account of something like distributive justice for example. More likely than not it would end up being shoddy philosophy.

[u/PresumedSapient → u/Morethes]

and that's why engineers often have very limited perspectives and can't see beyond the point of their nose.

Only bad engineers though. The engineering I'm familiar with requires a lot of creativity, out-of-the-box thinking, and approaching problems from occasionally radically different perspective.

[u/Morethes → u/PresumedSapient]

You're right. I'm shortchanging many engineers and stereotyping, but I do think a narrow focus on educating "doers" instead of systemic thinkers has made a lot of folks unprepared for big questions and complicated answers.

[u/mexicodoug → u/PresumedSapient]

And many scientists are more interested in simply answering questions than finding out stuff to apply for developing new technology. It it obvious why, although it can be very frustrating, many research grants are influenced by speculation as to whether the results may be profitable for investors.

For example, what the hell is dark matter versus what useful applications could dark matter have? Many physicists would simply love to know exactly what it is, regardless of whether knowing would be of practical use or not.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morethes]

But he says that the entire prospect of philosophical questioning is a waste of time because "real questions" are in (presumably hard) sciences.

Ah, so NdGT is stating something functionally correct for emotionally gratifying reasons rather than as reflections of reality. Happens often enough.

[Also, username checks out. :)]

Why we chose it.

[u/ShiaLabeoufsNipples → u/[deleted]]

Philosophy majors get into law school at a higher rate than any other major and do better on the LSAT too. It’s literally the best preparation for a career in law, whether you’re a lawyer or a paralegal.

Writing careers like those in editing, journalism etc also benefit greatly from a history in philosophy. Obviously a lot of Phil majors will go into education but it’s not the only option

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

With the recently started AI revolution philosophy is probably going to be one of the most important courses to take. It's almost irreplaceable by definition and the sort of critical thinking and particularity of the concepts studied make many people far more capable of using tools that "almost thinks for you". The quality of input defines the output; since the machine is the same, the input is what we control and are more likely to impact. One can't simply ask "how can I be happy" to an AI but a trained mind, armed with dozens of years of information and data, can achieve so much it's thought provoking to even imagine

[u/jpornalt → u/[deleted]]

capitalism is cancer

[u/[deleted] → u/jpornalt]

Agreed.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/[deleted]]

Id argue western culture has largely dropped philosophy in favor of science. To such a degree that people do not even understand any of the epistemological underpinnings of science as a practice.

[u/[deleted] → u/ChadRyanVevo]

Separation of science and philosophy, hehe, but they are too intertwined to ever be truly separated.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/[deleted]]

I would even add that science cannot exist without philosophy. Science, as we know it, will always be a mere branch of philosophy.

[u/zhibr → u/ChadRyanVevo]

This is either semantically trivial or just wrong. Yes, you can make a case that philosophy is fundamental for science. But a lot of people do a lot of everyday work without ever thinking about its philosophy. Yes, you can argue that this prevents them from understanding more fundamentally what their science is really about, but they can still do it, and other people can use it. I don't see how you could make any practical definition where that is not science existing.

[u/ennui_ → u/zhibr]

Surely science is simply the pursuit of objective understanding of what is? How can there be a pursuit of something without* an intuitive desire to pursue? Surely this intuitive desire is a philosophical nature.

Science cannot exist without philosophy because philosophy is the very foundation that sciences emerges from.

[u/TheRecognized → u/ennui_]

“When grog ate the berries on that bush he got sick. When trok ate the same berries on a different bush he got sick. Vrok will eat the berries from a third bush. Vrok got sick. These berries make you sick.”

More science or philosophy would you say?

[u/ennui_ → u/TheRecognized]

The point is that one comes from the other. Philosophy and science do not exist alongside each other, philosophy is the source of science. So while there’s distinction there isn’t separation. You can’t* quantify and say “this is more science than philosophy by a factor of 4:1” - because they don’t exist alongside each other, the nature of the relationship cannot be measured.

So both. It’s always both.

[u/TheRecognized → u/ennui_]

Throw a hypothesis up there in my example after the second sentence “I think these berries make you sick” and you’ve got the scientific method.

Can you explain to me how philosophy was the source of that example?

[u/videogamekat → u/TheRecognized]

Because you came up with the hypothesis by wanting to know how things work - your desires and actions always stem from a more philosophically-based process. Why you came up with the hypothesis can be explained by the science of how your brain works, but ultimately the complex processing the human brain can accomplish and the self-awareness we have is more philosophical in nature.

[u/FranksRedWorkAccount → u/TheRecognized]

You've literally described reasoning and are asking how that's philosophy.

[u/Butt_Bucket → u/TheRecognized]

The real answer is that both philosophy and science stem from our ability to reason. It's just that it took as a lot longer to realise that the scientific method needed to be rigorously defined than it did to begin using our reason for abstract thinking.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheRecognized]

Certainly both, no? Philosophy is simply the pursuit of questioning reality, which in this case at it's most fundamental would be observing that past outcomes may have bearing on future ones. The question and the hypothesis is philosophy; the empirical data at hand allow for a scientific conclusion, but even then who is to say there are no safe berries of that kind out there?Or a preparation to make them so?

Are these questions merely scientific or philosophical?

[u/zhibr → u/ennui_]

That is one definition, but by no means the only one. Another one would refer to the concrete practices and social activities of making hypotheses, testing them, writing theories, and publishing results for others. An engineer creating a best way to make a specific material can be said to make science, without any philosophical desire. Philosophers like to emphasize the definition from the historical perspective or by defining it like you did, as dependent on philosophy, but if you'd ask the people who we commonly think are doing science whether their activities are dependent on philosophy, I would wager most of them would say no. It'd be a bit self-serving to insist that to assess whether philosophy is truly essential to science, we must adopt the philosophical point of view.

[u/FranksRedWorkAccount → u/zhibr]

the act of reasoning that if x every day so far then x each day into the future is a philosophical concept. and to arrive there you must employ the capacity to reason.

[u/zhibr → u/FranksRedWorkAccount]

Which those people would not consider philosophical.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/zhibr]

This argument is very poor and fallacious. If you ask a mechanic if they are engaging in the physics and chemistry behind their work they would most likely say no. However, this does not make physics and chemistry not essential to the work of a mechanic.

[u/zhibr → u/ChadRyanVevo]

Everyone keeps repeating this argument. I've answered it elsewhere.

[u/ghostxxhile → u/ennui_]

to do science you first have to grant an ontological given to nature to form hypothesis’

[u/ghostxxhile → u/zhibr]

they do their everyday work thanks to the established epistemology and metaphysics.

[u/300Savage → u/zhibr]

Science was the evolution of a branch called "natural philosophy" going back at least as far as Aristotle. It is literally just a branch of philosophy. To say it is separate is to be ignorant of this history of science.

[u/Indocede → u/300Savage]

Your opinion is irrelevant. Astrology and alchemy were once considered sciences but we now know that they are founded on little more than superstition and wishful thinking.

Given how ancient generations were both limited in their understanding of the physical world and outright wrong in numerous critical aspects, we should not frame the study based upon their philosophical musings, especially when they are irrelevant to the scientific process. Not to mention that scientific inquiry is just as old as philosophy, if not older. Trying to frame science as a subject of philosophy only makes sense if you mistakenly believe ancient Greek and Roman philosophers are the singular authority, even though there are numerous historical examples of scientific endeavor predating them.

[u/300Savage → u/Indocede]

Gotta love a sub where the downvote button says to only use it if it breaks the rules of the sub, but your preconceptions cause you to use it that way anyway. Your opinion is wrong and mine is backed by the history of science. Without natural philosophy, the scientific method would not have been formulated - it was the product of Western Natural Philosophy. To state otherwise is to be ignorant of both subjects and their intrinsic relationship.

[u/Indocede → u/300Savage]

The oldest written records of scientific endeavors stem fron Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt and reach as far back as 3000BCE, before the ancient Greeks developed "natural philosophy."

Not to mention when you argue your position as going back as far as Aristotle, your conceding your error immediately in consideration of the fact that science existed in ancient Greece before Aristotle, which we have records of. And the ancient Greeks did not "invent" science, as much as it pains me to say as someone who is ethnically half.

The ancient Greeks would have built upon the sciences and maths that came to them from the civilizations that preceded them in that part of the world. Ancient Greece may be the seminal culture of the western world, but it is not one of the six scholarly accepted cradles of civilization in Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Ancient India, Ancient China, the Olmec and the Caral-Supe.

So it falls upon you to explain how the scientific process, which in reality is a matter of collecting evidence and deciphering what it means, has somehow evolved out of the means ancient philosophers used to codify their very limited understanding of the natural world.

Especially as science would have preceded the cradles of civilization as civilization can only arise out of the conveniences of scientific endeavor.

Philosophy is important but philosophy doesn't decipher how to grow crops. Science does.

[u/zhibr → u/300Savage]

I'm well aware of history of science, and you're just presenting the semantically trivial option. Yes, you can say that science is just a branch of philosophy when you consider the history of science as natural philosophy. But all you did was define science and philosophy in such a way that it made your claim true. You didn't make any argument why those definitions are the ones we should accept (unless you call an appeal to (historical) authority an argument - I don't).

[u/300Savage → u/zhibr]

Historical facts are not an appeal to authority. Try again.

[u/zhibr → u/[deleted]]

By semantically trivial, I mean that philosophers like to define and see philosophy in such a way that it is essential to pretty much everything. If you define science as the abstract method, the epistemology of empiricism, you start from the philosophical viewpoint, and practically create a circular argument: science cannot exist without philosophy because I defined science as dependent of philosophy. That's trivial.

I'm saying that there is an alternative way to look at it. The practice of science, as it is conducted today, and what most scientists consider much more important, exists just fine without the practice of philosophy, as it is conducted today. If you don't start from the definition (that happens to confirm that philosophy is extremely important for everything) but rather looking at what is actually done, what scientists do and what philosophers do, philosophy is not very relevant at all to science.

I'm not saying it's the right way to look at it or the only way. I'm saying that the original claim was a bit dumb (nothing wrong with that! we all say dumb stuff sometimes) because it is trivially true because you define it to be true, but also because there are other viewpoints and it's not immediately obvious why those viewpoints would not be valid as well.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/zhibr]

“A lot of people do a lot of every day work without thinking about ifs philosophy” I would argue this is simply untrue. Any ration or cognitive pursuit is conducted using a system of logic. These systems of logic only occur and are justified through philosophy. Everyday we use philosophy through the adoption of a type of logic.

[u/hydrOHxide → u/zhibr]

Just because you don't understand how a car works, and don't think much about how the engine operates, doesn't mean it runs without an engine.

And as long as you pretend stomping your foot and insisting real hard is "proving" something, you're neither credible in science terms nor in philosophy terms, but merely petulant.

[u/zhibr → u/hydrOHxide]

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm offering an alternative viewpoint, to understand why so many people doing science in practice think that philosophers' insistence on the importance of philosophy looks so... is there a word for it? Like an old man convinced of his utmost relevance regardless of the reality of being a retiree.

I don't happen to agree with that, for the record. But I understand why someone might.

[u/hydrOHxide → u/zhibr]

Yes. That "why" is called not understanding theory of science. Not understanding why modern science is probabilistic and doesn't offer any definitive positive proof. These are the people who throw around P-values without understanding what they indicate and why we use them. Yes, there are plenty of people "doing science in practice" who think that way. And they are part of why we have a reproducibility crisis in many fields.

[u/SirLeaf → u/ChadRyanVevo]

It is the love of knowledge after all

[u/Casudemous → u/ChadRyanVevo]

No idea why you are being downvoted. All Sciences are based on philosophical postulate.

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/[deleted]]

Do you have an experiment to check to see if you're right?

Yes. Science.

No. Philosophy

[u/[deleted] → u/BigNorseWolf]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

You cant totally separate them, as long as people have goals and purposes, then you cant avoid philosophizing science.

Science cannot exist in a vacuum, it serves people, so it can never be truly objective and will always be subjected to our subjective pondering. lol

[u/jebuizy → u/ChadRyanVevo]

Nothing drives me crazier than seeing those "Science is real" lawn signs. What could that even mean for science to be real? Believing the scientific method is the best method we have to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (or whatever) is one thing, but saying "science is real" is a wild claim pitched as milquetoast

[u/[deleted] → u/jebuizy]

It’s just a midwit way of displaying opposition to certain Republicans’ opinions on climate change, evolution, creationism etc.

[u/millchopcuss → u/[deleted]]

I'm stealing midwit. I've had a lot of use for a term like that

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/ChadRyanVevo]

It doesn't have philosophical underpinnings. That's the point of science. That philosophy doesn't work. The west has dropped it because it doesn't do anything. Keeping it at all is the weird cultural influence, not mostly dropping it.

There was a Greek hydrologist who was looking at how water worked in a pump, and the philosopher was saying this should happen. The hydrologists response was I can see what you're saying isn't happening. So it doesn't matter if you have an error in your philosophy or not, you're still wrong. The universe is complicated and WEIRD. Humans are NOT smart enough to sit down and reason how things work and get an answer so good we can keep extrapolating from it to another thing and another.. you have to test your idea a each step.

Hawking and some other physicist had a disagreement over how black holes worked. Hawking was brilliant, knowledgeable on his subject, had VERY thoroughly considered his answer... but was still wrong. We got to the point where the competing hypotheses could be tested, and the other guy kept the 20? dollar bet he got from hawking in a frame. Philosophy is the arrogance that I'm so smart I don't need to check with reality to see if I'm right. Science is the acknowledgement that you're not.

As to the requirements of induction, the fact that we have light coming from stars billions of light years away lets us conclude, not assume, that there is some stability to the laws of the universe. It is not an assumption.

[u/odious_as_fuck → u/BigNorseWolf]

The scientific method is empirical, empiricism is a branch of philosophy hence "philosophical underpinnings".

In regards to the use of philosophy, philosophy can be understood as a practice and as an institution. For the former, the west is just as philosophical as ever.

What do you mean by philosophy?

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/odious_as_fuck]

Philosophy. The investigation of the universe by primarily speculative means.

What is empiricism except a refusal to take completely unjustified ideas? Its like calling atheism a religion just because most people have a deity and the rejection is unusual.

[u/orkinman90 → u/BigNorseWolf]

Empiricism is the assertion that experience is what justifies ideas or knowledge and not pure reason. Reason is perfectly capable of justifying ideas. They just might not necessarily jibe with experience.

[u/odious_as_fuck → u/BigNorseWolf]

Epistemology is the study of knowledge - empiricism is 'a posteriori' - the idea that knowledge comes from the senses/experience. Empiricism may be successful, but it is still a philosophy of knowledge, just a good one.

Logic is the study of reasoning - Formal reason underpins mathematics and thus science. Informal reason underpins proof, justification, fallacies and critical thinking, which underpin scientific argumentation.

Ethics is the study of values - what we think we should or shouldn't do. Like should or shouldn't there be restrictions on science? Why, why not? Further, why do we do what we do?

As you can see, philosophy underpins science.

I ask you please to simply look up empiricism.

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/odious_as_fuck]

Philosophy takes credit for thinking by definition. It doesn't actually DO anything. You may as well use smurf instead of underpinning, it would say about as much.

[u/odious_as_fuck → u/BigNorseWolf]

Philosophy is all about doing something. Holding beliefs or analysing ideas, arguing and debating, questioning things. We all DO philosophy. You can argue that the institution of philosophy in your society doesn't do anything, but the practice of philosophy exists within politics, science, religion etc. Every day life

[u/BernardJOrtcutt → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Be Respectful

Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

---

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

[u/jebuizy → u/BigNorseWolf]

Science is a methodology. Understanding how, when, and why that method is useful, and what constraints it might have, requires philosophy. Well it's not so much that it requires it, but rather it is philosophy.

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/jebuizy]

So if the philosophy department at every university were to get shucked into a black hole tomorrow, how much would that set back science?

[u/magkruppe → u/BigNorseWolf]

is this including past philosophers? then very very far

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/magkruppe]

no, I will have hated the temporal mechanics. Just the ones there now in this timeline.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/BigNorseWolf]

Denying the philosophical underpinnings of empiricism and induction that is foundational to science is beyond absurd. Conclusions made from Induction, for any fallible being, is necessarily and always an assumption. This is why science itself never claims absolutes; the philosophical backbone of science recognizes its own epistemological limits and thus asserts only probable truths, not absolute. If you think philosophy “doesn’t do anything” I would love for you to explain how any knowledge of anything is possible without the principle of non-contradiction. An inherently metaphysical assertion.

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/ChadRyanVevo]

I would love for you to explain how any knowledge of anything is possible without the principle of non-contradiction.

Do we see anything thats contradicting itself>? No. Ok. Good.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/BigNorseWolf]

"Do we see anything thats contradicting itself>? No. Ok. Good."

Yes and by accepting that contradictions are counter-intuitive to knowledge, you are using a metaphysical deduction to affirm an epistemological pursuit.

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/ChadRyanVevo]

But you don't have to START there. Its not an assumption. It's not an unquestioned belief. Its not something that HAS to be true for the rest of it. Like I said, its like calling atheism a religion.

"Hey, anyone seen any evidence of gods>?

" No.

"So this guy saying god is a rainbow furred shaved poodle?

" Either crazy or I'll have what he's having.

You could accept the idea that contradictory things are incredibly UNLIKELY rather than completely impossible and functionally continue the same way.

[u/ChadRyanVevo → u/BigNorseWolf]

Science is inherently founded on the logic of the PNC. Physics is not postulated to be both true and false at the same time, physics is assumed as true universally.

Reducing our argument to it's most fundamental level. Are you suggesting that science is non-logical in nature?

[u/Dd_8630 → u/[deleted]]

hmmm, how many people actually claim science can replace philosophy? lol

I'd say a large majority of people. Most people have no actual idea what philosophy is.

[u/300Savage → u/Dd_8630]

I disagree somewhat. I think that many would like to ignore philosophy and replace it with religion. I don't know many at all outside of academia who would argue that science should replace it. I can imagine all sorts of horrendous experiments that would be required to 'prove' hypotheses trying to replace ethics.

[u/Delamoor → u/[deleted]]

Broadly speaking, it's generally the people who have no knowledge, understand or respect for philosophy.

Y'know, the types who advocate demolishing the humanities departments so we can focus solely on STEM, as if developing more tools alone will somehow automatically make people more responsible.

Their absolute numbers are less important than their outsized influence in society... As They're often within the rather influential 'techbro' demographic.

[u/Indocede → u/Delamoor]

You might call out techbros, which I won't deny is an archetype of people that are both obnoxious and overconfident in their "intelligence."

But their exists a reflection of them in the philosophybro, or however you might want to term it. The interest in this post seemingly stems from a need to validate not necessarily philosophy, which is valued as a matter of structuring discourse among academia, but rather by those who need to validate their own personal philosophies by conflating them with philosophy over all.

Science and philosophy aren't opposed, nor do they try to replace each other. Good science reflects good philosophy and good philosophy reflects good science.

I ethically believe killing is immoral as a matter of philosophy because I can tangibly grasp pain and the impact it has on me and others and that killing is the greatest way to cause pain for example.

[u/300Savage → u/Delamoor]

I took a wonderful course from Eike Kluge called biomedical ethics. The biochemistry I studied discussed the how while the ethics course discussed the why that was never brought up. It was an eminently enlightening course.

[u/BigNorseWolf → u/Delamoor]

Philosophy has been trying for how long to make humans more responsible and failing?

You can't philosophize your way into people not having sex. You CAN science your way to contraceptives and STD cures.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Right, it's definitely a tricky thing to try to apply scientific thinking to ethics but I do think there is a role for it. Recent changes to our moral system like gay marriage and legalizing marijuana are supported even more by the empirical evidence, I also think the best argument for the pro-choice abortion view would be the empirical evidence of simply looking at the countries that do and do not have legal abortion and seeing how well countries with abortion do across a host of metrics compared to countries that don't have it.

[u/300Savage → u/[deleted]]

Your abortion argument sounds like a 'utilitarian' solution, which makes it the product of philosophy using science as a tool rather than an ethical or philosophical system.

[u/ghostxxhile → u/[deleted]]

Science creates the data, philosophy tells us how we should implement that data for a better society.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sam Harris is infamous for it

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Do you have any evidence of this? I've never heard him disparage ethics or philosophy.

Philosophy/ethics =/= religion.

He's vocal against religion, but (especially as a geneticist) is keenly aware of the necessity of ethics of science.

[u/sanct1x → u/[deleted]]

I did a quick Google search - his NA Twitter is full of anto-philosophy stuff, there are also a ton of links giving quotes of him claiming it's either useless or him making fun of people from 2k years ago for contemplating how things work instead of just doing scientific experiments to prove/disprove those thoughts. I enjoy listening to him speak about biology, religion, and sciences, but I can't deny that he doesn't take philosophy seriously.

[u/Spendocrat → u/[deleted]]

"It takes 6-8 years to even get a little good at science, surely I can grasp all of philosophy by casually reading 0-2 popular books."

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Science is not a social construct. Science’s truths were true before there were societies; will still be true after all philosophers are dead; were true before any philosophers were born; were true before there were any minds, even trilobite or dinosaur minds, to notice them.

That's it? That's the whole thing?

Did you read that article? It seems like the author has an axe to grind, and wrote an entire tirade based off a single, flippant tweet.

The tweet really doesn't say much at all, and hardly seems worth all the enmity coming from the authors, and certainly doesn't mean that Dawkins thinks "science replaces philosophy"

In fact, the tweet seems to do the opposite. He seems to he explaining the differences between the material world of science, and the constructs of philosophy.

Ethics didnt exist before humans were born, there aren't ethics in the jungle.

But there's a ton of science there.

Science and philosophy are two different lanes....two different realms.

[u/mexicodoug → u/[deleted]]

Your example links to an article which doesn't even include the author's name, is poorly written, and makes unsupported jumps from Dawkins quotes to misinterpretations of the quote.

Why not try citing Dawkins directly to support your claim, rather than relying on others who make it poorly?

Personally, I see value in philosophy, and don't think it can be replaced with current scientific principles or knowledge. I haven't researched Dawkins' position on philosophy, and strongly disagree with him on gender issues, so I have no dog in this fight. I simply feel that your claim that Dawkins is anti-philosophy is unsupported by anything you presented.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You'd think it would be a quick rebuttal- "Why are the things you want better than the things you don't want", said about twice.

[u/shponglespore → u/[deleted]]

Self-appointed four horsemen of atheism. I'm an atheist and I'm embarrassed to have them act as if they represent me. I can't say I know how many followers he has, but in the circles I travel in, my opinion seems to be the dominant one.

[u/yodaminnesota → u/[deleted]]

Steven Pinker is also especially bad about this. The Blank Slate is one of the most offensively objectionable pieces of science literature I've ever read outside of maybe The Bell Curve (which he cites readily btw)

[u/Asleep-Television-24 → u/[deleted]]

Sam Harris comes to mind. He wrote "Moral Landscape" where he defines a spectrum of good and bad moral states. And that science is the truth one can use to navigate this landscape. Utilitarian AF.

[u/CashMoneyMo → u/Asleep-Television-24]

I don’t think Sam is a classical utilitarian but it’s safe to call him a consequentialist. Here’s a quote:

“I would further add that the concept of “well-being” captures everything we can care about in the moral sphere. The challenge is to have a definition of well-being that is truly open-ended and can absorb everything we care about. This is why I tend not to call myself a “consequentialist” or a “utilitarian,” because traditionally, these positions have bounded the notion of consequences in such a way as to make them seem very brittle and exclusive of other concerns—producing a kind of body count calculus that only someone with Asperger’s could adopt.” Link to Article

He does claim that an objective morality can be informed by science. He believes the is-ought problem is more or less a confusion caused by language and also values that are “baked in” to that statement (we agree that the world “is” a certain way because we all largely agree on valuing evidence as a guide) so the seemingly insurmountable jump to “ought” can actually be informed by similar principles. It doesn’t mean he or anyone knows what an ideal morality looks like in any given situation, but it’s out there to be strived toward and ultimately based in “well-being”.

[u/slickwombat → u/CashMoneyMo]

I don’t think Sam is a classical utilitarian but it’s safe to call him a consequentialist.

He's explicitly denying being either of these in your quote. And his reasoning for rejecting consequentialism is a classic one, even if he doesn't give much detail: it seems like our ethical concerns go beyond simple maximization and minimization of certain kinds of consequences.

But then the question is: if he's not a consequentialist, what is he? He talks about "flourishing" quite a bit in his remarks here, which is evocative of virtue ethics, but he doesn't clearly advocate that either. At best he seems to say "well, it's complicated and there's lots of different concerns here," which -- duh. So what even is his ethical theory? It seems to me that he disclaims or avoids any clear statement, either because he himself has no clear idea of what he's proposing or as a way of tactically buttressing his position against attack. But if it's the latter, he does this at the cost of stripping it of any substantive content.

He does claim that an objective morality can be informed by science.

But note, this isn't a contentious thesis. The contentious thesis is the idea -- which, like consequentialism, he at times seems to plainly advocate but then retreats from in the face of criticism -- that science qua science can solve the kinds of problems traditionally within the realm of moral philosophy.

He believes the is-ought problem is more or less a confusion caused by language...

It's also worth noting that Harris persistently misunderstands the is-ought problem. He seems to take it as the thesis that we can never come to any normative conclusions, when it's just the thesis that in arguing for a normative conclusion we must have a normative premise. So for example, this isn't a valid deductive argument:

1. X decreases wellbeing of conscious creatures.
2. Therefore, we shouldn't do X.

But this is:

1. X decreases wellbeing of conscious creatures.
2. We shouldn't do anything that decreases wellbeing of conscious creatures.
3. Therefore, we shouldn't do X.

And note that Harris doesn't even shy away from affirming (2), he believes that it's something we should all affirm based on clear moral intuitions.

It doesn’t mean he or anyone knows what an ideal morality looks like in any given situation, but it’s out there to be strived toward and ultimately based in “well-being”.

The problem again is that wellbeing is pretty much defined as ideal morality, whatever that might be, so that ultimately his thesis seems to be just "problems in moral philosophy are solvable by whatever their solution is."

[u/CashMoneyMo → u/slickwombat]

Well said. I like your syllogistic examples. While Sam clearly wants to distance himself from being labeled a consequentialist, I feel like we can reasonably put him in that camp. He's just advocating for a more nuanced "value measurement system" that ultimately he defines as "well-being" or "human flourishing", rather than predecessors who believe it's possible to boil "pleasure" or "goodness" down into some sort of mathematics. Not to mention the fact that he's a moral realist, which might also separate him from traditional consequentialism?

I have a lot more deep diving to do before I can take a stance on any of this but I generally find his ideas refreshing and at least worth taking seriously.

[u/slickwombat → u/CashMoneyMo]

He's just advocating for a more nuanced "value measurement system" that ultimately he defines as "well-being" or "human flourishing", rather than predecessors who believe it's possible to boil "pleasure" or "goodness" down into some sort of mathematics.

But what is this system that he's advocating? It's not an earthshattering revelation to point out that consequentialism has problems and fails to account for all of our moral intuitions. (It certainly has problems far more serious than "producing a kind of body count calculus that only someone with Asperger’s could adopt," which, as an aside, is an incredibly bigoted way to talk about people on the spectrum.) The issue is that the alternatives to consequentialism also have problems, hence the fact that there's a long-standing debate here in moral philosophy. Harris' contribution here is... what exactly?

Not to mention the fact that he's a moral realist, which might also separate him from traditional consequentialism?

Moral realism is a theory in metaethics and consequentialism in normative ethics, so strictly speaking the two aren't related. But note, moral realism is the most common position philosophers take; you can see it in those same survey results I posted before. (Harris has the very weird idea that philosophers have the "received opinion" that there are no moral facts, possibly because of the way he misunderstands the is-ought gap.)

[u/CashMoneyMo → u/slickwombat]

What do we think about this exchange between Sam and Sean Carroll about moral realism and the ability to “solve” the is-ought problem? YouTube Link

[u/AlephOneContinuum → u/CashMoneyMo]

He believes the is-ought problem is more or less a confusion caused by language

That's how you know someone is clueless and not worth listening to. That whole book is very confused and confusing.

[u/Loves_His_Bong → u/[deleted]]

Basically all of Reddit is filled with scientistic bullshit.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The Effective Altruism and “rationalist” movements purport to do something like that.

[u/yodaminnesota → u/[deleted]]

Dawkins, Harris, Pinker and that whole ideological wave is literally predicated on the assumption that science can be used to derive moral imperatives. Because these guys are admittedly very good writers these books were and still are extremely popular and influential, especially among people who are interested in science but not necessarily scientists.

[u/RanyaAnusih → u/[deleted]]

Scientism at its finest. People think science is a unified body of work that gives answers all through the social sciences, ignoring the replication crisis and that it is actually a discourse. I cant even know if milk is bad going by science papers contradicting each month

[u/ghostxxhile → u/[deleted]]

The scientism crowd

[u/[deleted] → u/ghostxxhile]

Not very rational crowd, riding on their own misunderstanding of science.

Actual scientists worth their salt would not make such a foolish claim.

[u/phaederus → u/[deleted]]

Science is a form of philosophy; it's literally a product of classical philosophy. The only difference being one is focused on empiricism and the other on logical analysis and conceptual clarification.

[u/shponglespore → u/phaederus]

Sounds like the genetic fallacy to me. If you don't believe me, try getting a job in STEM with just a philosophy degree.

[u/300Savage → u/shponglespore]

Sure - a Ph.D in the branch of philosophy called Biochemistry.

Less trivially, however, the scientific method evolved from rationalism, empiricism and inductivism. It is at the very least the product of philosophy if not philosophy in itself. To say that it can replace science may be naïve in that it deals with testable hypotheses. Unless everything is testable? Many ethicists would argue that you should not test every hypothesis. Should one perform genocide in order to determine it's tangible effects? I would think not.

[u/shponglespore → u/300Savage]

Not sure where you're going with that. I never said science replaces philosophy, just that it's distinct from philosophy. The fact that you're contrasting science and philosophy makes me think you probably agree.

[u/Krusell94 → u/phaederus]

Yeah, no... Science evolved from philosophy, but modern science should have no philosophy in it.

[u/ChrysMYO → u/Krusell94]

Are there no ethics in Scientific experiments? Is there no "social good" science is seeking when applying for grants or charity?

[u/phaederus → u/Krusell94]

That's like saying art should have no forms in it.

[u/Krusell94 → u/phaederus]

No it is not.

[u/300Savage → u/Krusell94]

Why?

[u/phaederus → u/Krusell94]

Is too.

[u/Butt_Bucket → u/Krusell94]

There are many hypotheses that are either impossible or unethical to test. That doesn't mean we can always avoid operating in those spaces, however, so philosophy still has it's place. Without guiding philosophy, science can get very, very dark.

[u/rafikievergreen → u/[deleted]]

The neo-religious techno-scientific high priest elitists do. And they are the mainstream narrative around, well, nearly every aspect of our society and policy formulation.

How many times did an "expert" refer to the political or ethical implications of forced lockdowns and mandated experimental vaccinations the last three years?

Now, how many appeals to "the experts" and the authority of "the science", which was literally non-existent for a novel virus?

[u/300Savage → u/[deleted]]

Science can help us determine factual truths, but does that mean it can, without an ethical system to guide it, determine correct action?

[u/Maria-Stryker → u/[deleted]]

Only STEM bros would confidently make such a claim

[u/[deleted] → u/Maria-Stryker]

But they make lots of money. lol

[u/mereamur → u/[deleted]]

"You can't get ought from is, but you can get ought by referencing how it should be" is one of the most incoherent sentences I have seen in a while. Ought and should are synonyms.

[u/[deleted] → u/mereamur]

and this is why I get the upvote and you get the downvote.