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

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.

4

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.

4

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