Talk:Kenkou Cross Q&A/@comment-93.140.160.22-20140628193939/@comment-Party Vanderbilt-20140628220523

Quote:

"However, philosophy seems to  be science taken to new levels. All branches of science take it as self-evident that our senses don’t deceive us in their representation of an outside world. Given this premise, science seeks to explain phenomena that the senses present. We see, for example, that things fall to the ground when we drop them. Science asks, why? Philosophy, then, is the next level of inquiry; it asks, for instance, how do we know that things fall to the ground when dropped? Can we be sure of the existence of objects, or of the ground? What sort of thing is a physical object?

The same rigor that’s present in science, of testing and retesting hypotheses, is also present in philosophy. Various theories are debated. The unsatisfactory ones are discarded, and the more secure ones are retained. Over time, we can indeed see that progress has been made."

:End Quote

Despite the fact that the article you took that from points out similarities, it does not change the fact that the ultimate difference between the two disciplines is there.

Science CAN be observed and accurately quantified.

Philosophical questions cannot.

I don't deny that philosophy requires discipline and rigor. I don't deny the necessity of debate.

What your posting does not address is the fact that science does require both observation and quantification. We know the moon does not fall, scientifically and despite all appearances, because we have made the necessary measurements and calculations. We know that the wind, rain and rivers create and destroy valleys for similar reasons. We know SN2007bi occured approximately 1.6 billion years ago because we have quantified how far we are from its host galaxy. This is what science does.

Philosophy does not give us that ability and philosophy does not require these things. Philosophy does not require one to quantify God in order to prove or disprove his/her existence. Philosophy makes allowances for differences in individual perception. It allows each person to carve out his or her own view of themselves and the world around them. This is what philosophy does.

"Democritus made the atomic theory of the universe with philosophy."

What of Leucippus? You're forgetting him.

What you're ignoring is that they proposed theories. But they provided no evidence. No proof. They had nothing they could show people and say, "This is why this is." The best they could say is, "I believe."

The two are related, but the two are not the same. Philosophy gives us questions. And it gives us potential answers. But it doesn't give us hard, proven answers. Only science can do that.

The biggest difference in rhetoric between a Scientist and a Philosopher? The Scientist says, "I know, and I can prove it." Or, at the very least, "I have a strong suspicion, based on this evidence."

The Philosopher says, "I believe. This is why I believe. But you may believe differently."

<p style="font-family:Georgia,BitstreamCharter,serif;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1.7em;outline:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15.866665840148926px;">Philosophy is not science taken to new levels. Turn it around, and you're closer to the reality.

<p style="font-family:Georgia,BitstreamCharter,serif;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1.7em;outline:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15.866665840148926px;">Or possibly, to put it better, philosophy gives us questions. Science gives us answers.

<p style="font-family:Georgia,BitstreamCharter,serif;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1.7em;outline:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15.866665840148926px;">EDIT:

<p style="font-family:Georgia,BitstreamCharter,serif;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1.7em;outline:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15.866665840148926px;">QUOTE: You have a wrong definition of science. It is meta-knowledge.

<p style="font-family:Georgia,BitstreamCharter,serif;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:1.7em;outline:0px;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:15.866665840148926px;">Wrong. Science is a way of 'gaining' knowledge. Science is not, in and of itself, knowledge.