Question: How, exactly, does philosophy underpin science?

by bohm 62 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  quietlyleaving: thats very true, logic is one of two pillars of mathematics (3 if you count in human imagination; piller two is sets). But what im getting at is that if i should point out resources for someone who wanted to study logic, i would point to great logicians like Boole who formalized logic and created a useull language (boolean algebra), and i would point to mathematicians who has studied the limits of such systems, such as Turing, Tarski and Gödel.

  I am saying this out of a position of ignorance, but if philosophy provide the foundation (not in the historical sence). of modern logic, what is that then?
• 

  quietlyleaving

  I think we need to get away from house building structures and using underpinning in that sense only. The relationship between philosophy and mathematics and science only priviliges one or the other if you are studying the subject.

  Going back to your opening post, I would prefer to suggest some sort of parallel structuring like a map for instance and indicate points on the map for science, mathematics and philosophy. So the support is there sideways.
• 

  snowbird

  IMO, philosophy is what we know, how we know, and why we know.

  It underpins science in the sense that philosophical quests (what is life and how did it originate) have often led to scientific and mathematical breakthroughs.

  I don't believe it to be coincidental that early mathematicians and scientists (Bacon, Descartes, Newton) were also philosophers.

  I believe Einstein was also a philosopher - the man was mainly a thinker.

  Syl
• 

  Mad Dawg

  A person's presuppositions will dictate how he approaches science.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  A good start, Bohm.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

  http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html

  I'd like to add, science itself rests on certain scientifically unprovable assumptions, or first principles. These assumptions were made, philosophically, before what we would consider the age of modern science and helped enable it.

  To trust that science "works" means you have to believe in the assumptions, at least implicitly, if not explicitly.

  You can't prove the assumptions, scientifically.

  These assumptions are reasonable, in my opinion. But reasonable does not mean provable. They are philosophical in nature; not scientific.

  Any system of formal logic is unable to prove its core assumptions from within its own framework. This applies to the system of science, just as much as it applies to any other system.

  BTS
• 

  Meeting Junkie No More

  Secret insider information: the basic premise of mysticism.

  Not sure I agree with that.

  Mysticism is a 'way of seeing' from the Greek word 'mystae', meaning 'eyes closed' (root of 'mystery' and 'mysticism'). Those who had not 'seen' (or understood) the Inner Mysteries of the Mystery Religions were beginners or 'mystae', those who had understood them were called 'epoptae'.

  Anyhow, because unfortunately, I cannot make long posts like Terry can, (wish I could); suffice to say that among many others, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Empedocles were more than academic 'intellectuals' - they would probably be your 'crazies' of today; gurus, mystics, space starers, etc. These men and other philosophers were all initiates of the Greek 'Mystery'religions, enlightened masters, if you will. I would venture that their philosophy would have been an expression of their 'inner' universe, the first 'psychonauts'; those who explored their 'inner space' to understand the origin of life.

  Today most people remember Pythagoras for his mathematical insights; I think his reputation, when alive, as a wind stiller and raiser of the dead(!) is pretty much forgotten. Fascinating stuff!
• 

  notverylikely

  I'd like to add, science itself rests on certain scientifically unprovable assumptions, or first principles. These assumptions were made, philosophically, before what we would consider the age of modern science and helped enable it.

  Which assumptions? By the way, BTS, I am NOT asking to argue, I am ASKING.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Which assumptions?

  1) Nature is orderly: regular in pattern and structure.

  2) Humans can know nature. They can deduce laws describing its order.

  3) Everything has a natural cause.

  3) Claims must be subject to objective demonstration to be true: nothing is self-evident.

  4) Knowledge can be derived empirically through the senses, whether directly or through augmentation.

  5) The senses can be trusted to provide a true knowledge of reality (see number 2 and 4)

  I am sure there are others. I'd like to add, most of these claims rest on developments in Christian theology/philosophy. It is for this reason that Modern Science emerged in the Christian West...and for the first time in human history.

  BTS
• 

  notverylikely

  It is for this reason that Modern Science emerged in the Christian West...and for the first time in human history.

  Not to argue, but the scientific method, the first peer reviewed medical treatment practice, treating chemistry as science rather that magic, the first formal study of physics, modern study of optics, nodern and advanced math, cartography just to name a few, were all pioneered by Muslims. Granted, a few hundred years later the west began to catch up and build on these, but they certainly didn't start in the West.

  With regard to the assumptions, do you consider those BAD things or not? I would consider some acceptable like empircal data and using our senses and augmentation simply because we have no other choice.
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Muslims made many important discoveries in there early years. However, it was in the west that knowledge truly blossomed.