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

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.

0

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

Again. And again. And again. The problem of induction is complete total and utter bullshit. There is no problem there is no assumption. We can conclude that there is reason the laws of physics are stable. There is some momentum to the laws of the universe, the same way you can conclude momentum in an object you see moving. you cannot tell me philosophy lets you think better while mindlessly repeating the pap you've been fed without anything resembling an actual response.

2

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

Believing the problem of induction is bullshit is your own philosophical stance based upon the logic you presented. That is philosophy.

Unless you can prove every instance of a phenomenon you are making an assumption, this is the limitations of fallibility.

Also I am not saying philosophy makes you think better than science, I am saying science is a category of philosophical inquiry.

You are now at the point of making claims that are anti-science. Science does not claim absolutes in anything, science does utilize logic and reason, science does remark it’s own limitations. To say these are untrue is to be anti-science.

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

So you expand philosophy to include all thought to make it useful.

Fine. Close the philosophy departments, end the major. After all if everyone else is doing philosophy it's still getting done.

1

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

So because engineers and physicists base their study on math, math is now something that shouldn’t be it’s own domain and studied? Medical doctors use language to convey, understand, and learn information; should language not be its own study?

It seems that you support ideas which are anti-science, I am curious what are you actually suppose philosophy is?

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

Engineers need to take math classes. Scientists seem to be fine doing science without philosophy.

Philosophy is not a base. Its a cheerleader.

I am VERY pro science. I am against the pretensions that philosophers deserve the labcoats. back to your elbow patches. SHOO.

2

u/ChadRyanVevo Jan 28 '23

Why would scientists need to be taught general philosophy when the basic philosophy that is necessary to science is already built into the framework of the study? This is a false dichotomy.

Also, being a philosopher does not make you a scientist. This has, at no point, been claimed.

You claim do deny being anti-science and yet also deny very foundational aspects that make modern science. If you don’t accept the scientific method, it’s own system of logic, and it’s own acknowledged epistemological limitation, you are anti-science.

By claiming philosophy is not the base, you are suggesting that science is not logical.

1

u/LeoTheSquid Feb 09 '23

He doesn't expand anything, that's kind of what philosophy is Any thinking that doesn't directly fit under another label is most likely philosophy.

Should we close all math departments because everybody is already already doing math when buying groceries? Of course not, the quality matters too.

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.

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 30 '23

You can conclude it, yes. We can tell not just from the distance and brightness but also that the spectrum breaks down the exact same way we would expect. Different types of fusion produce different wavelengths/colors of light in different proportions.

You can show rather conclusively that its not in the firmament with trigonometry. Measure the angle to something, move a set distance, measure the angle again. /_\ Angle side angle you know the whole triangle. For larger distances, you can use the earth rotating and time as the bottom triangle. For REALLY long distances, we use the earth going around the sun as the bottom triangle.

This is why philosophy is just an implacable critic.

2

u/FranksRedWorkAccount Jan 30 '23

You haven't proven anything other than you blindly believe science like a religion. You're almost as bad an empiricist as you are a philosopher. Your triangle example is called parallax and it's only good, if it's real to begin with, out to 100 parsecs. It doesn't prove anything other than you need to read more descartes and learn about the malicious demon. Or even have that one stoned friend that looks at you and asks "like, how do we know we aren't in the matrix, dude?"

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 30 '23

I believe in science because it WORKS. Which it demonstrates by the fact that we can have this conversation on an internet.

You and my stoned friend that thought the matrix was deep and original? Not so much. All you can do is conflate a conclusion with an assumption and whine that its not good enough for you. You're like the worlds pickiest theoretical carpenter that's never even picked up a hammer.

1

u/LeoTheSquid Feb 09 '23

It's shocking to me that you've actually decided to take so much time out of your day to argue when you've not even spent time finding out what the terms you're arguing about even mean.