On the relationship between Philosophy and Science

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

On the relationship between Philosophy and Science

Postby thinkdr » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:19 am

ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN – AND THE CLOSE RELATIONSHIP OF - PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

MAKING SENSE OF SCIENCE
What I mean by "science” when I use the word is this: The scientists note a collection of data lacking order - just a jumble of data. They devise a frame-of-reference capable of making sense of that data; and they agree on standards of interpretation (also referred to as “bridge laws.”)

The frame-of-reference when applied to the unordered data explains and orders the data [and if a time-factor is introduced, predicts what will, or is likely to occur.] Then, when these components are present, and when one employs scientific methods, and shares results transparently, one is engaged in a science.

For ethics, Moral Psychology [also known as the Science of the Moral Sense] supplies the experimental data. Ethics will eventually be understood as a serious research discipline and as a knowledge resource. The Science of Moral Sense can test the hypotheses which the new perspective for Ethics produces. That perspective is one of the major topics of discussion in the present essay. Does Ethics – as a research discipline - have data? Yes, it does.

Ethical data are good deeds; incidents of kindness; cases of harmonious cooperation toward a constructive end-in-view; as well as specific examples of corruption, violence, abuse, exploitation, selfish manipulation of others, etc.

The new paradigm for Ethics suggested here will show a pattern where there was none before. Random concepts will now fit together into an ordered network. Values and value-judgments often provide us with information about the conscious human beings making those assessments and judgments. In this sense, values are facts. And science is helpful when it comes to facts.
While philosophy reflects, muses, and asks questions, science supplies some answers. And in doing so it always raises more questions, more topics for research. Philosophy grapples with “Why” questions; science deals with the What? and with the How? Science provides us with what works.

Robert. S. Hartman, in his book, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE, has defined “Philosophy” as: “‘the continuous clarification and analysis of ague concepts.” As philosophy is done successfully concepts become sharper, less vague or ambiguous, clearer, more exact and more precise. One way this is achieved is by defining one’s terms. As a result communication is facilitated and greater
understanding occurs.6

If one traces the history of ideas, one learns how Philosophy is the "Mother of the sciences." Philosophy of Mind became the Science of Psychology; Astrology became Astronomy and Cosmology; Natural Philosophy became Physics; the philosophical ideas named "Politics" became Political Science. Cultural philosophy became Anthropology which later became part of the discipline Sociology. The philosophy of curing became the Science of Medicine today with its various branches: Anatomy; Physiology; Ophthalmology; Neurology; etc. So we see that before there was science there was philosophy as its precursor. The sciences were generated by Philosophy.

In the late 15th century the idea that light beams would have anything to do with Euclidean geometry struck many persons as "absurd"! Yet later Newton showed that a straight line (a notion in that geometry) would best explain the data. In the same way the frame-of-reference of any science gives a meaning to its terms that often do not coincide with ordinary usage of the same term. In spite of that the terms in the scientific theory when related to the other terms of the system serve to best explain the formerly-unordered data. So a science matches up a framework with a chaos of data thereby ordering and explaining that data.

The same is true of Ethics. It takes notions such as: altruism, philanthropy, empathy, compassion, kindness, cooperation, harmony of interrelations, reciprocity, win/win outcomes, moral principles, prescriptive imperatives, integrity, guidelines to success, freedom, happiness, conscience, hypocrisy, guilt, greed, caring, pleasure, consideration, satisfaction, love, war, corruption, joy, etc., etc., and relates them all (to each other) in a meaningful way; thereby making order out of chaos. Science provides a pattern where there was none before.

Then the designers and engineers can come along and create technologies that make life run smoother,' grease the wheels' so to speak; they make our lives more comfortable, less tense, more secure, less quarrelsome, increase our capacities. Examples are the printing press, the jury system, the mediation services, new and improved approaches to therapy and to life-counseling, placement services, matchmaking services, universal-basic-income experiments, or especially wealth-generating and wealth-sharing funds such as they have in Alaska, U.S.A., etc. This comprises Applied Ethics at its best.

Eventually Moral Philosophy can transition into ethical science. Ethics will take its place alongside Physics. This will occur as the terms of Ethics are made more precise, well-defined, and related to each other as parts of a rigorous frame-of-reference; and as more experimental findings are shared. The ethical theory presented in these pages is the initial stage of this process of working out a frame-of-reference.

The good news is that Ethics now has a reproducible methodology: the administration of tests to determine how the test-taker thinks about values, and what general conclusions can be drawn when this test is administered to thousands of counselees. The test is scored objectively by standard statistical methods. It has been validated many times, and is listed in Boru’s Manual of established tests.

Many moral philosophers today, influenced by Prof. Kant’s reasoning, agree on the moral imperative: Do no harm. Living up to this principle in daily life includes refraining from psychological abuse-such as name-calling; and from committing violence; and from participating in a war.

The “Do no harm!” imperative has lots of implications for the setting of policy. Torture, of course, is then out of the question; While violence is ruled out, force is morally permissible according to the findings of the ethical scientists. The scientists in the field of Ethics make a distinction here. Do you know the difference between "force" and "violence"? To restrain someone you are rescuing from drowning who is behaving in a panicky manner is an example of the use of force. The rescuer subdues the struggling drowning person in order to bring the drowning person to shore, to safety. The rescue is made in a context of a commitment to create value in that situation, that is to say, the rescuer cares about the quality of life of the person who may be rescued, as well as he cares about his own self-interest. He or she does not want to experience the destruction of value that would occur if a life is lost. In contrast, one who commits violence usually does not value Intrinsically the individual who is the recipient of that violence. That failure is, of course, an ethical mistake.

As the project to advance the new science makes progress, and as the findings get reported, people will come to see how everything you know about ethics fits together and is explained and ordered by the new paradigm. The reader will comprehend and understand how and why Ethics is an empirical science with replicable experiments and the use of scientific methods of research.
The theoretical framework offered here is responsive to an ever-changing moral climate and is capable of transcending many contemporary mores. Every proposition in science is highly-tentative, subject to revision when better models some along.

Scientists usually Intrinsically-value their theories, see beauty in their models, and (due to their personal tastes) select the area in which they choose to do research ...all of which are instances of Intrinsic valuation. [abbreviated as “I-value.”] They compose the value, i.e., upgrade the value, of the mere mental conceptions by Intrinsically-valuing them This is a case of value composition. All this will become quite clear as you peruse with care the documents cited in the signature below.
:idea: For further reading and insight into the topics of Ethics check out these links, and thereby add to your reading enjoyment

THE BREAKTHROUGH - We Can Get Along After All (2018) [NEW]
:!: http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BREAKT ... %20all.pdf


[size=115]LIVING WELL: how ethics helps us flourish
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LI ... ourish.pdf


BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014) http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz

ETHICAL ADVENTURES http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/ETHICAL%20ADVENTURES.pdf

and ASPECTS OF ETHICS http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/ ... ics%20.pdf

When you Google this selection you may wish tostart with page 20 to skip the technicalities. Marvin C. Katz - ETHICS: A College Course http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Ethics_A_College_Course.pdf
thinkdr
Thinker
 
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 7:05 pm

Re: On the relationship between Philosophy and Science

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:39 am

Agree with the above.
Philosophy-proper is the meta-manager that overrides and manages all knowledge including Scientific Knowledge, Morality & Ethics, and philosophy-itself as a subject.

Morality and Ethics are tools of philosophy-proper.
Science is also a tool of philosophy-proper.

For Morality and Ethics to be effective, it need to use Science as a tool in all areas where necessary. One area where Science is relevant is the Science of Values [your recommendation] and other areas like the neural basis [neuroscience] of morality and ethics.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users