JustAPerspective t1_iuacaoo wrote
Reply to comment by calibraka in Even if they never get it right, philosophers should at least aim at getting it right because getting it right can be important. by thenousman
Philosophy is literally "the study of everything".
Physics is the study of how everything works.
They are both speculations rooted in subjective observations in an attempt to understand reality. That you feel there is a difference between these things is... curious.
What differences do you see in the two subjects?
calibraka t1_iualhe2 wrote
Scientific method? In simple terms Physics is a natural science and philosophy is not.
JustAPerspective t1_iuauxhr wrote
"Natural science" is an artificial label, a distinction without definition in this context.
To phrase it more plainly for you, what makes physics a "natural science" and philosophy... not?
Suspect it's merely the grouping conventions of the current educational system with which you are aware.
That? Is not logical reasoning - it would be bias... so we hope there is more to your position than "Someone told me so".
calibraka t1_iubfx2n wrote
I don't know who is the we you keep talking about but what makes your words any different than "someone"? I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia. As for what makes natural science different from something like philosophy, in natural sciences you have to be able to demonstrate your findings in real life to prove what you are putting forward to be true. In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement. Don't even get started with artificial label bullshit. Once you go there there is no reason to argue anymore as everything can argued to be artificial and it just makes the waters muddy. You are talking as something can't both be biased and logical. Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not.
JustAPerspective t1_iuc4970 wrote
"In philosophy only requirement is that your proposed argument have to make sense in context of the system of thinking that you have put forward. You generally can't really prove your point with observable facts in philosophy and even if you are somehow able to that just means you have gone beyond what is expected of you as that is not a hard requirement."
So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?
You said earlier you respect philosophy as much as physics, yet you appear not to give credence to philosophy as being as intellectually rigorous as physics when it comes to substantiating its positions with evidence - this is why you see it as being less definitive, appparently.
Yet even when philosophers prove their point - demonstrable evidence - you seem to think that's exceeding the expectations of philosophy... because people haven't practiced doing anything different.
Labeling anything a "natural science" is a difference made by people without explaining it - if you're just doing what somebody else told you to without understanding why, you're probably not a good guide, just an obedient one.
"Everything we think, say and do are biased so you are not in a position to argue what is logical or not."
Perceptions are biased; choices need not be. Your lack of ability and/or imagination in no way applies to others, so perhaps this perceived "impossibility" is just a limitation of yours?
iiioiia t1_iudjj3w wrote
>So the difference is that you set lower standards for aspiring philosophers than for aspiring physicists, and the problem is somehow with the field?
Physics is known to be deterministic, metaphysics seems to be otherwise. So, different approaches may be appropriate.
JustAPerspective t1_iue2ale wrote
Differing approaches are fine; differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.
Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?
iiioiia t1_iue4ne4 wrote
> Differing approaches are fine;
Opinions vary, and strongly!
>... differing levels of credibility ought to have actual, articulable reasons beyond " I am just going with what is widely accepted in acedemia." - because academics makes mistakes too.
Many do, but aren't widely distributed. And that which is not known has a way of appearing to not exist.
> Obedience does not bring victory, & calibraka may want to understand that before echoing what they were told without reflecting on whether it was accurate, perhaps?
Shall we ask of others that which we cannot do ourselves?
iiioiia t1_iudj48s wrote
>Physics is the study of how everything works.
Does it encompass the metaphysical realm?
JustAPerspective t1_iue1pj3 wrote
That is a good question.
Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit? Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities. The blindspot of any thought-science devised by sentients is that sentients' own inability to address that which is can not detect, yet may exist anyway (i.e., Dark Matter/Energy).
How a scientist meets the unknown reveals a lot about the habits they've been practicing - absolutism has few places of validity; in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is.
iiioiia t1_iue5gv0 wrote
> Metaphysical is still part of 'everything', innit?
Opinions vary. A lot of people (some of them otherwise genuinely "smart") seem to believe that it does not even exist, that it "is" "woo woo".
> Way we see it, physics cannot study or discuss what it does not experience, yet it can - and ought to - acknowledge the possibilities.
No disagreement here, but the fan base seems to have not gotten the message. Maybe that scientists rarely knowledge that science does not even try to study the entirety of reality (while often implying that it does) has something to do with it. Personally, I doubt most scientists even have a strong understanding of the genuine complexity involved.
> in real science, anything may be challenged, and often is
I wonder how much real science still exists on the planet. It's an interesting idea to contemplate.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments