Re: Can the respective value of philosophy and science be compared?

On 6/3/12 2:40 AM, marc.tessera@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
The term “value” is questionable because it is subjective. However it
is possible to compare philosophy and science on their respective
fertility. In that case there is no doubt about it: science fertility
is incomparably higher.

"Fruitfulness" is the word you want.

There is nevertheless an issue is such a comparison because
historically science seems to be the daughter of philosophical
thought.

"Seems to" is an understatement. All science originated as philosophy.

However “the word scientist is relatively recent—first coined
by William Whewell in the 19th century. Previously, people
investigating nature called themselves natural philosophers. While
empirical investigations of the natural world have been described
since classical antiquity (for example, by Thales, Aristotle, and
others), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle
Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī and Roger
Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the
early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution
that took place in 16th and 17th century Europe (Wikipedia “History of
science”).
Some think (like Richard Norman) that “the distinction between well
done science, done by well trained scientists, and well done
metaphysics, done by well trained philosophers, is quite similar and
have equal weight. Mathematical logic done by a philosopher can be
exactly the same as logic done by a mathematician”. However
mathematics can be performed by everybody. PhD in mathematics is not
required because it is easy to show that a mathematical demonstration
is false if the reasoning is wrong. It is not so for a philosophical
assertion because it is much easier to introduce a red herring into
the reasoning, for example by using concepts with no explicit or clear
definitions. Moreover philosophical definitions cannot have the
accuracy of the mathematical ones.

How would you characterize thought experiments? Are they science or philosophy or both?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The pernicious influence of mathematics.
    ... Doesn't mathematics begin with definitions and then develop ... philosophy /ends/ with a definition. ... statement would be the instant end of all philosophy [and science ]. ... If you talk about the potential energy of pluto you don't expect ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The pernicious influence of mathematics.
    ... Doesn't mathematics begin with definitions and then develop ... philosophy /ends/ with a definition. ... statement would be the instant end of all philosophy [and science ]. ... collection of specialised terms about which there is broad on meaning. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The pernicious influence of mathematics.
    ... Doesn't mathematics begin with definitions and then develop ... philosophy /ends/ with a definition. ... statement would be the instant end of all philosophy [and science ]. ... collection of specialised terms about which there is broad on meaning. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The pernicious influence of mathematics.
    ... Doesn't mathematics begin with definitions and then develop ... philosophy /ends/ with a definition. ... statement would be the instant end of all philosophy [and science ]. ... matter what the definition of "planet" is. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The pernicious influence of mathematics.
    ... Doesn't mathematics begin with definitions and then develop ... philosophy /ends/ with a definition. ... statement would be the instant end of all philosophy [and science ]. ... matter what the definition of "planet" is. ...
    (talk.origins)