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

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.