Most of the ‘science’ which currently fascinates us seems to me to be simply speculative philosophy, regardless of whether or not it is quality speculative philosophy.
As the ‘Tower of Babel’ is to Christianity, as ‘speculation’ is to philosophy, so are these extreme (yet highly visible) trends to the scientific endeavor. From theories of pre-history (and even of prehistoric consciousness) to theories of how the universe ‘began’, we seem to be unable to extricate ourselves from basing a theory on a theory which was based on a theory which was in turn based on another theory… Or to put it another way (sorry if this is too simple an example, I’m terrible at math – and maybe I’m wrong to boot? ): You can’t add 2.02 + 2.98 and get 5.00176.
Of course it could be said that I simply don’t understand the absolute genius and mastery of the scientific greats. But at what point is this trend simply theism in disguise? Or even blind faith?
You can never prove a theory, only disprove it, this is the nature of a theory and the scientific method. We know that most current theories are incomplete in some way but that they do work within limitations.
You could say that philosophy of science has blind faith caught up in it; this I would agree with.
I would say a true scientist knows that philosophy shouldn’t really effect his reasoning. But this is expicit to the scientific method anyway.
could you give some examples of what your talking about?
I guess the most obvious is atheism. But we’ve had that discussion to death.
Well frankly I’m talking about any theory regarding prehistory, the limits (time and space) of the universe, etc. all the way up to many of the wildly theoretical topics I find in this ‘Natural Sciences’ forum. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that - just that it isn’t what I’ve ever considered ‘natural science’.
It probably sounds incredibly ignorant of me, but I just find myself being highly skeptical of our ability to know much of anything about these things.
Fin - while I understand your point, we do need faith in induction to perform science. While no amount of induction proves a theory, in practise, inductive information is considered confirmation of a theory, however provisional. One thusly confirmed theory may provide the basis of another - that first theory is, in practise, accepted then. Anon is correct about this, as a matter of historical fact.
But none of this is theism, which is a specific subject matter of faith.
Anon - take threads in the Natural Science board here as representative of science as it is practised by professionals at your own risk.
The non-subjective science would be something which could exist entirely exclusively from humanity. Something that did not need to be made, built up, wanted, guessed upon, dreamed of, imagined, etc. All sciences began as imagination, or passed through imagination, and are expressions of the subjective.
Luckily, most of them are also not internet-“philosophers”, and so they do not so heavily polarize the objectivity of brain matter and the subjectivity of the thoughts within that brain matter into some sort of completely separate classes, when, in truth, they are the same things.
To separate the mind from the matter is, in many ways, metaphysics, because then “me”, consciousness, desires, dreams and the soul are somehow above and separate from solid reality.
This kind of culture, ofcourse, came from the greeks and romans before the english, and is thus part of what we dare call “logic”.
That’s the sad history of deductive logic, Dan~. It was originally used to prove metaphysical “truths”. Those that have begun and ended their philosophical reading with the greeks (which I suspect is often the case here) are either misled or heartbroken. They are angry at logic, when they should be angry at Plato.
It began when truth was made into a religion.
When it was something of highest virtue, highest value, to sacrifice one’s life for. Something that the gods had in perfect and complete detail. Something above nature, though, in-fact, nature does not even “know the truth” about itself!
After the logic written of blood is done, ofcourse the heart is tired or broken. And it all began with the speculation that truth is “good”.
Actually all science is based on the philosophy of logic, science is nothing more then different philosophical systems brought together that seem to work to gain knowledge.
Witness:
Logic (countable and uncountable; plural logics)
(uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.
Don’t we take a lot of things on faith since we can’t conclusively procure that information to our subjective satisfaction? Are we only as whole as the things we understand on the whole?
Science was born from philosophy. Bacon, Newton, and Locke are the topmost figures that stand out in my mind. Empiricism, and in extreme cases positivism, form the groundwork of modern science.
): You can’t add 2.02 + 2.98 and get 5.00176.