Thread replies: 16
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: 1463753999517.png (7KB, 420x420px) Image search:
[Google]
7KB, 420x420px
If the scientific method is just one epistemic method out of infinitely many, and science is merely a subset of philosophy, then why do non-scientist philosophers completely evacuate any field that scientists are directly involved with? Surely they have a lot to contribute? Philosophy is more than just science.
So for example, philosophers love talking about the brain and consciousness but they are suspiciously quiet about how cars work. Why is this? Why isn't the Harvard faculty trying to work it out, when cars are such an important part of our society? The engineering / scientific school has merely done it through the scientific method yet there are still so many more methods to be used!
It seems the main function of philosophers is to spin ever more elaborate and unfalsifiable chains of reasoning about subject areas that haven't yet been colonised by scientists or mathematicians and desecrated with maths at a higher than secondary school level. But that's just my ignorant cynicism, no doubt.
>>
>>1930917
Science makes philosophy obsolete on an epistemological level. So it follows that philosophers are active in areas that scientists have less to say about, like consciousness. Whereas in areas like math philosophy becomes useless.
>It seems to me...
It seems to me like you're trying to hard to sound smart, which just makes you sound obnoxious, it has little to do with cynicism.
>>
>>
>>1930917
the scientific method is pretty rudimentary, it can be boiled down to "establish a claim, then do your best to make sure the claim is true".
there's a reason there's no alternative.
>>
>>1930959
>Science makes philosophy obsolete on an epistemological level.
As oppose to what level? A metaphysical one?
>>
Rabelais: "science without conscience is only the ruin of the heart"
>>
>>1930968
An ethical level.
>>
Science étymology : Scio (latin) = cut / know. Science cut the world in piece for understand them.
Philosophia/logos activity = global understanding of things/ all sciences / all sensations/ all impressions/ even faculty of knowledge themselves
>>
>>
>>1930993
Many philosophers were scientists : Descartes/ Pascal/ Bacon/ Newton/ Popper...
>>
For your question about scientific method : read Gaston Bachelard Rational activity in modern science
>>
>>1931005
Yes, back in the day when science was easy and you could do philosophy as a hobby. Nowadays a study of philosophy will not get you anywhere near science and you'd likely end up serving coffee in an investment bank.
>>
>>1930959
>Science makes philosophy obsolete on an epistemological level.
Really? What about ethics then?
Science has the ability to annihilate all living life on this planet.
I think you should be careful what you wish for.
>>
Because we know how cars work. With consciousness, there are gaps and ambiguities in our understandings which philosophy is more than eager to discuss.
>>
File: image.png (3MB, 2208x1242px)
3MB, 2208x1242px
OP is literally retarded. Why don't philosophers study cars? This is your genius example? Cars are analogous to the mind-body problem? You've got that problem figured out I'm sure.
>>
>>1930917
Did you use science to determine that you should value evidence, OP?
Thread posts: 16
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2