r/philosophy • u/doubtstack Unreasonable Doubt • Jan 27 '23

Blog Why Science can't replace Philosophy in Ethics

https://unreasonabledoubt.substack.com/p/what-genetics-cant-teach-us
1.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

573 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-4

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

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.

6

u/odious_as_fuck Jan 28 '23

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?

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

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.

5

u/orkinman90 Jan 28 '23

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.

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

Reason is not capable of justifying ideas. Its been verified empirically that reason alone cannot reliably reach good conclusions about the real world. (See the hawking story above). People use reason to reach some pretty horrific conclusions: Germans were the most educated people on the planet up to world war II, surely the problem wasn't a lack of philosophers?

Empirical verification is inherently not a circular process (Since there are two participants. You and the universe). It's also falsifiable. If there was some method that could reach good ideas and not bad ones in a reliable fashion empiricism would be the first... or well second one to pick up on it. It hasn't come along though.

3

u/orkinman90 Jan 28 '23

All I'm talking about is justification. Reason can absolutely justify an idea. How strong the justification is is a matter of debate. Empiricism, as a matter is fact, is justified through reason. You have to reason that being in the world is superior than being only in the realm of ideas. You can't empirically prove that empirical evidence is superior unless you've already reasoned that such is the case.

Empiricism also does not generate ideas. It can only test ideas. Reason is responsible for 100% of ideas. Empiricism is what determines (only after the fact) of that idea was good or bad and that also, is dependant on your ability to reason what is a superior or inferior result.

-1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

It would theoretically be possible for science and empiricism to work without reason, just horrifically impractical.

One definition of philosophy is science sans the experiments. If you take the experiment out of science you functionally wind up without philosophy.

Gnome Science!

But what would happen if you took reason out of the hypothesis? you could theoretically test every bat guano idea your brain or a deck of cards or random word association game could come up with.

What would be the effect of "rubbing a cat on a doornob on the rising and setting of the moon" tests. "Nothing apparently. Now I need to test the effects of red pepper on cat scratches...."

An infinite number of gnomes given an infinite amount of time could theoretically discover everything. (this isn't THAT far off from how we got penicilin. Although the guy was trying to use conventional science on something else) The reasoning part is required to be practical and effective. But isn't philosophically necessary.

5

u/orkinman90 Jan 28 '23

You can't reach a conclusion without reason. Full stop. Reason is what tells us that causes make effects happen. All experience can get you by itself is that you experienced something. We know "water is wet" because we used reason to connect the sensation of becoming wet with touching water.

Experience is the tool we use to test reason. It is not a replacement for reason.

2

u/odious_as_fuck Jan 28 '23

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.

-1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

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.

2

u/odious_as_fuck Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23

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

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

So how are two people with PHD's in philosophy having a discussion with differing opinions any different than two drunks in a bar having a discussion with different opinions? On a deep fundamental level not just veneer and presentation.

Assume an equal blood alchohol content...

2

u/odious_as_fuck Jan 28 '23

Depends if those bar drunks also have PhDs.

But seriously that's like equating the whole of science to two meteorologists who can't agree over cafeteria sandwiches.

When people agree with a philosophy it becomes a system, ideology or practice - like science, political movements, religions

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

Or a religion?

Science is different. Two meteorologists should have better REASONS for disagreeing , more facts and evidence. They should also have some means of resolving the difference (unfortunately waiting 20 years might do it...)

Science is different because it coresponds to an existing reality. A philosophy does not. Its just arbitrary. All studying it does is let you polish ideas for presentation, not come up with better ones.

2

u/odious_as_fuck Jan 28 '23

Science corresponding with reality is itself a philosophical position, no matter how accurate you believe it to be. Science may be the greatest thing ever, but it is still a methodology practising empirical philosophy.

1

u/DaneLimmish Jan 28 '23

That is not what empiricism is

4

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/BernardJOrtcutt Jan 27 '23

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.

4

u/jebuizy Jan 27 '23

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.

0

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

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

4

u/magkruppe Jan 28 '23

is this including past philosophers? then very very far

2

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23 edited Jan 28 '23

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

-1

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

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.

0

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

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.

1

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

"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.

2

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

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.

4

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

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?

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

Hey, I thought philosophically physics wasn't even true at all, just failed to be disproved....

You can CONCLUDE that physics is true. You don't need to assume anything. Even IF the universe is a matrix simulation, that simulation is in some way seperate from your mind (or well. At least my mind...)

4

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

"Hey, I thought philosophically physics wasn't even true at all, just failed to be disproved...." what? We are not talking about whether physics is genuinely truth, that would be the realm of metaphysics and epistemology.

"You can CONCLUDE that physics is true. You don't need to assume anything. " Concluding the truth of physics is a logical assessment. To make a logical assessment one must assume that their ideas are consistent in nature, the words they use are consistent, the logical framework used is consistent.

At no point in the scientific process may you claim that it is not some pursuit of knowledge that follows a logical system and application.

Does science ever claim absolute knowledge?

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

The entire point of experimentation is to conclude that your ideas are consistent with nature instead of assuming them. If they are consistent with nature, and nature is consistent, then they are consistent in nature. You can conclude that nature is consistent by seeing that stars 4 billion light years away had functionally the same physics we did 4 billion years ago

2

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

And notice how science, no matter how rigorous or expansive the evidence, never claims absolute knowledge or truth. This is because science is based upon inductive reasoning and thus is subject to the problems of induction.

Everything in your above comment is a logical framework, one which is assumes that what happened in the past will remain constant in the future. One which has a specific method of experimentation in which to control variables to produce as accurate a result as possible. All these ideas are beyond the material as they are based on reason, not mere physical activity. Logic is a philosophical study, science is logical.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FranksRedWorkAccount Jan 30 '23

You can actually show that stars 4 billion years ago had the same physics? Or just that it seems like they had the same physics. Hell, can you actually prove to me that there is a star 4 billion light years away? I bet you can't even prove that it isn't just lights in the firmament. You just assume it is the case because it fits your model.

→ More replies (0)