Will philosophers ever solve the big science problems ? Is philosophy an effective tool of discovery ? Philosophers have asked "Who am I ?" and "What is mind? " for centuries and not once did a philosophical inquiry lead to the awareness of a synaptic connection in the brain or the role of the frontal cortex. Philosophy is great for discussing morality and testing the integrity of an argument. It will not solve the puzzle of causality or what existed before the Big Bang. IMHO.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Philosophy leaves me cold, I must admit. Before we had maths and science it was the only tool we had to explore the world, but basically trying to use an imprecise medium - language - to work out precise solutions was never going to work. Many of the philosophical discussions I've seen have been reduced to the 'tedious parsing of words' to use an expression from one of the participants.
(I have to say that I'm a maths and science graduate and therefore biased....)
Hmmm, sounds like some of us prefer data over dicta.
Nutmeg, In what group do you place consciousness?
Science of course. Why do you need to ask?
Is a flower, a grain of sand, conscious?
Why do you think it is not?
At the end of the day science is the reason we understand reality.
And all aspect in the end will be explained by science even the concepts of love, emotions, etc...
It is just a matter of time.
Jeff,I do think that consciousness is a phenomenon that is present across all forms... grains of sand , flowers, and people. Science simply ,means... of the senses. However today's science in far more about math/ accounting than it is about sensing.
you are talking about "today science" as if you are confusing science with how people use science today.
Science is static it does not change.
An honest attempt at finding something won't change even if there are no honest people left alive.
Just like the concept of a car won't change even if there are no cars in existence anymore.
You can either be scientific or fail at being scientitic, there is no grey area.
If "today science" is not being scientific "about sensing" then it simply is not being scientific.
That sentence alone should be enough to make you realize that "today science" is referring not to science but the scientific community.
Science is in everything, even sensing.
There must be a scientific explanation for everything.
If we know about it or not is another story.
That is what I call today's science... it has reach its limits. The background of this discussion is atheism. Without a creator what is the universe... at Source? What is the meaning of existence? Today's science will not get you there. By discarding philosophy we remain food to the least aggressive religious mind. He offers meaning.
"That is what I call today's science... it has reach its limits."
They said something like that just before they cut Galileo's head.
"Without a creator what is the universe"
when Laplace presented his planetary model to Napoleon he commented, "Well, I see there is no God in this system". Laplace replied;
"Well, Your Majesty, it works without that assumption."
What is the meaning of existence... at Source?
When you see a baby drown/burn, do you see a meaning for his existence?
"He offers meaning."
The only meaning I can retrieve from it is that, if he exists he is at least incompetent and doesn't give a shit.
"By discarding philosophy we remain food to the least aggressive religious mind. He offers meaning."
Now that is an interesting twist. Philosophy as a bulwark against religious ignorance. I agree that philosophy is a great tool for discussing the meaning of life. I doubt you will discover anything about first cause or what occurred before the Big Bang using philosophy. A philosophical argument does not have to be true to be valid. By this logic the least aggressive religious mind could be defeated by a moderately aggressive philosophical mind. Neither citing any scientific truth.
Hi Anaturalphilosophy,
Please define what you mean and understand by "conscious."
A mind form aware of the presence of other mind forms.
Consciousness is a part of a nervous system {brain}. What kind of nervous system does a flower have?
Tell me if I'm wrong here, but there's a marginal difference between science/math and philosophy, no?
They have a shared history. Not unlike how chemistry and alchemy have a shared history. I think there are some pretty big differences myself.
A good example is often times in philosophy if an argument has undesirable consequences, that is considered a reason to reject it. Imagine if you did math that way:
I need 10 litres of gasoline and gasoline is $3 a litre; 10 * $3 = $30. I don't have 30 dollars so 10 * 3 must not equal 30!
I think you're wrong. Science is based on objective facts which can verified, and maths is the tool used to formulate theories. Science produces LEDs and computers and the internet and aircraft and medicine and everything else which enhances our lives. Philosophy produces hot air. Still, if you can't do science it does help to pass the time, I suppose.
The invention of the telescope drove the first big wedge between science , religion , and philosophy. We now use instruments to see beyond what our senses are capable of. Now we have to accept that if the evidence points at something counterintuitive it does not matter what philosophical construct the evidence trumps.
Science exposed the philosophical construct of religion as inadequate, even faulty. Then it took the place of religion. Its grand motto: evidence. Evidence of what? It is easy to take apart... more difficult to construct. What "general" all-encompassing principles has "science" constructed to define what is life? Do not discard philosophy yet.
DNA !
This is one of my favorite debates on this subject :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFAko80vgwg