Comment on Science is Magic

refalo@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Philosophy is just science, except without the requirement that things align with reality.

  source

  • ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    TLDR: Science only exists because philosophers laid out the framework for science. The entire concept of the scientific method was designed and refined by philosophers, the whole concept of science was created by philosophers. The dangers and risks of science were identified by philosophers. It is the duty of the scientist to gather knowledge, it is the duty of the philosopher to question science.

    Science runs because philosophy walked.

    Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions, derived from philosophy by at least one prominent scientist, that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form a basis on which science may be grounded. Logical positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have criticized these assumptions and given alternative accounts of the logic of science, but each has also itself been criticized.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Philosoph…

    Francis Bacon (no direct relation to Roger Bacon, who lived 300 years earlier) was a seminal figure in philosophy of science at the time of the Scientific Revolution. In his work Novum Organum (1620)—an allusion to Aristotle’s Organon—Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism. Bacon’s method relied on experimental histories to eliminate alternative theories. In 1637, René Descartes established** a new framework for grounding scientific knowledge in his treatise, Discourse on Method, advocating the central role of reason as opposed to sensory experience.** By contrast, in 1713, the 2nd edition of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica argued that “… hypotheses … have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy[,] propositions are deduced from the phenomena and rendered general by induction.” This passage influenced a “later generation of philosophically-inclined readers to pronounce a ban on causal hypotheses in natural philosophy”. In particular, later in the 18th century, David Hume would famously articulate skepticism about the ability of science to determine causality and gave a definitive formulation of the problem of induction, though both theses would be contested by the end of the 18th century by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason and Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. In 19th century Auguste Comte made a major contribution to the theory of science. The 19th century writings of John Stuart Mill are also considered important in the formation of current conceptions of the scientific method, as well as anticipating later accounts of scientific explanation.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Moder…

    Philosophy of science is the branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Amongst its central questions are the difference between science and non-science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose and meaning of science as a human endeavour. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of scientific practice, and overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, logic, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and the concept of truth. Philosophy of science is both a theoretical and empirical discipline, relying on philosophical theorising as well as meta-studies of scientific practice.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

    Does SCIENCE = TRUTH? (Nietzsche + Mega Man) - 8-Bit Philosophy

    source
  • F04118F@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What is reality?

    source

    • essteeyou@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Proven philosophy

      source

      • F04118F@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Ever heard of this guy called Descartes? He basically wrote the script for this movie, The Matrix, a few hundred years before they started shooting it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • LeFantome@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    “Philosophy is just science, except without the requirement that things align with reality.”

    Philosophy is just history, except without the dates, events, and locations.

    As they said in The Muppet Movie, “its like an ocean cruise except there is no boat and you don’t actually go anywhere”.

    source
• LeFantome@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “Science is just a stepping stone to philosophy.”

  I somewhat agree with this.

  The most essential activity in science is observation. Consensus on the facts is the most essential thing.

  As a bonus, you can propose explanations. The only acceptable ideas are those that agree with observation.

  A “good” scientific idea is one that not only agrees with known facts but also predicts facts not yet known. That way you can “test” the idea to get a stronger sense of how useful it is. Most ideas are not even valid, never-mind good.

  So the most important aspect of science is to test ideas against observation. But where do the ideas come from?

  That brings us to philosophy…

  source
• zarkanian@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You need philosophy to do science. So, philosophy leads to science, not the other way around.

  source
• sparkle@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Philosophy is the way we try to assign (semantic) meaning to science/scientific observations.

  Does the universe really exist outside of our minds? Is the position of matter actually the position we view it at? What is consciousness? I mean it depends on what you mean by existing, or being in a state, or consciousness. When you break language down far enough it becomes clear that it’s not objective, and it’s entirely suited to each person’s unique subjective understanding and interpretation with the context. Language is definitions all the way down. It doesn’t make sense to use human language to describe the real world objectively, yet we try anyways.

  At least, that’s how I feel about philosophy as a linguist and someone who really likes theoretical universe stuff.

  source