Philosophy And Science Seek Truth
Philosophy And Science Seek TruthAt their core, philosophy and science are seeking the same thing - truth.
I heard this recently and thought it would be an interesting discussion. -- BrucePennington
Science looks at information (evidence) and philosophizes about its meaning (theory).
Philosophy wonders at information and draws conclusions about its meaning.
If there is an AbsoluteTruth?, would they both come to same conclusions?
I'll need to disagree, here. Science seeks useful explanations, whereby 'useful' means capable of predicting future observations. Science is rather apathetic towards truth; it matters not whether the models are true, only that they are useful, testable, and not contradicted by present or future evidence. Philosophy, meanwhile, cares little about information or evidence or anything derived directly from the outside world; philosophy deals with 'what ifs', axioms, postulates. That isn't to say philosophy doesn't care about truth, but the truths drawn from philosophy are invariably tied to the axioms and postulates that, themselves, cannot be deductively proven... and often can be inductively disproven, judging by how often I've seen "Spiders have 8 legs" as a premise to a deductive argument. Various maths fall under philosophy... they're sort of the 'hard philosophy', just like sciences based in measurement are 'hard sciences'.
Science neither requires nor implies the existence of AbsoluteTruth?; it operates by inductive logics, and relies on its own evidence that future predictions can be aided by modeling past predictions. Philosophy, however, often deals with absolute truths... e.g. "'if P then P' is true under some logic systems". It just doesn't deal with truth about the real world.
Good points, all. I admit I know very little about philosophy as a discipline. Philosophers certainly have wondered about some very far out hypotheticals that probably have no relation to RealLife, and certainly have no evidence to support them. However, that problem is not relegated to philosophers alone. I recently read an article in ScientificAmerican magazine, by a well-known man in the StringTheory world, who was hypothesizing about waves of universes that may have collided and brought about the BigBang. That's just as far out as anything Aristotle cranked out, and certainly has no evidence to support it. -- BrucePennington
There's a big difference between certain philosophical "theories" and those of Witten et al. StringTheory and some of its more curious hypotheses (like the one alluded to above) are based on logically sound implications of mathematical systems that have shown parallels with real-world behaviour. When you have a mathematical system that can repeatedly and successfully predict measurable aspects of a significant number of real-world conditions, it can be effectively used as a model of an aspect of reality. When a model is shown to be reliable, the (as yet) unmeasurable predictions it makes have to (at least) be taken more seriously than pure supposition. That doesn't mean the model is necessarily true -- further research may find flaws in it or replace it with a better model that makes alternative predictions about (as yet) unmeasurable conditions -- but it does mean we are more inclined to treat its predictions seriously than those produced and supported only by imagination, mythology, etc. -- DaveVoorhis
I'm also surprised at your statement that science is "apathetic towards truth; it matters not whether the models are true, only that they are useful, testable, and not contradicted by present or future evidence." Many a scientist has lost face in their professions for cranking out false data, models, or information. The very idea that the models are dumped once "contradicted by...evidence" means that the people involved care about truth. The PiltdownMan comes to mind. -- BrucePennington
An IdealScience is one in which scientists have no human foibles, no egos to bruise, no reputations to lose, no research funding to maintain, and no years of wasted effort to lament. Ideal scientists would all willingly and happily give up their favourite theories when faced with irrefutable contradictions. However, real scientists are human, and some are as inclined as any other flawed and ego-centric creature to commit fraud or whatever in an effort to save face or research funding (though they risk losing both if they are caught) when faced with contradictory evidence. Have you never sustained an argument, or even lied, despite knowing you were wrong? Fortunately, the scientific process permits this. Invalid theories eventually get weeded out, but it sometimes takes a while and may involve many wrong turns along the way. -- DaveVoorhis
[See also ScientificBeliefTrap]
DV is correct. I write of an idealized 'Science', not of its human practitioners. There isn't any reason a synthetic intelligence couldn't perform Science (or even Philosophy). There needn't be any emotion involved... so 'caring' about truth in the literal sense is easily dismissed. In the more figurative sense, you could state that the intention of Science, the whole purpose behind it, is to approach truth. With this, I'd agree... but I'll add some caveats: Science is inherently based in perception, so it cannot ever be utilized to approach 'grand' truths like "Why are we here?" "Where are we going?" "Is there really a spoon?". The only 'truth' Science can approach is better prediction of future perceptions. Perception is fundamentally true (that is 'I perceived X' is true or false independently of whether X actually exists), and thus any prediction over perception is (or shall become) true or false. Any truth science approaches cannot transcend perception; it's a fundamental limit.
Of course, I would never dismiss Science. Predictions over perception are among the most useful, most practical sort. And technology accompanies science, allowing better manipulation of future perception. That is definitely sweet considering how effectively we have added to our own comfort (a feeling, based in perception) by use of technologies.
I am not convinced that Scientists and Philosophers can really seek a convenient agreed upon "truth". First of all because ItDepends upon the existence of a mutually agreeable definition of just what "truth" is. I am convinced that some may be able to agree that one can "validate" a controlled and well-defined position. Thus, it may be said that "X discipline" and "Y discipline" seek "Validation". An individual can also arrive at what they determine by "faith" as being true, and may even find others who also "believe", having that same faith. -- DonaldNoyes ThinkingOutLoud
Scientists and Philosophers can agree on certain truths. Scientists and Philosophers are people, not disciplines, and most Scientists also practice logics, geometries, maths, and various forms of hard Philosophy. I think ItDepends is used too often as a WeaselWord; there are many useful definitions of truth, and Scientists and Philosophers would agree that most of them lead to something they can agree upon given the correct context. I'm not sure what you mean by "X Discipline seeking validation"; those words bring to my mind the notion of a discipline like Parapsychology or Cryptozoology seeking a reason for its own existence -- validation for the discipline as a whole. Most disciplines seek nothing like validation or truth... e.g. glass blowing.
I think PhilosophyAndScienceSeekTruth only because HumansSeekTruth?. But there is no AbsoluteTruth? because ThereIsNoAbsolute?. -- .gz
That makes a lot of sense. I bow to your logic. I now think PhilosophyAndScienceSeekToEat? because HumansSeekToEat?.
To reuse your own words:
If one is seeking something, it is not generally that which is established and certain, but rather for that which is needed to support or reinforce something else, and because people can arrive at an agreement does not make something "true" , especially when ItDepends upon a what one presents as its context. See PiltdownMan for example. Validation is used in the sense of "useful, testable, and not contradicted" of which you speak above. The word discipline is used in the same sense of which Bruce uses it, also above ("philosophy as a discipline"). Science as a discipline seeks to validate its predictions in the "ScientificMethod". It is validation, not truth to which "Science is rather apathetic towards", that is sought. -- DonaldNoyes
One of the things I have come to enjoy is the humbling experience of learning that what I have been saying is not exactly what I've meant! You guys are absolutely right. Philosophy and science are just methods, tools, or disciplines we use to gather and/or analyse information. It is people who seek truth. They just use these methods (sometimes) to get at it. Certainly, there are those of us (me included) that just enjoy the practices of philosophy and science. And there are those who pursue them because it is their passion, it is what they are tallented at. And then there are those who just do it for money. But, BigPicture, I think mankind has been using them to find out "what is." (There are other reasons we use them, like wanting a BetterMouseTrap, or self defense, or curing disease, etc). But, over-all, I think it is the same drive that pushes us to explore new frontiers, new lands, outer space. We just want to know! -- BrucePennington
See also AbsoluteTruth?, ScientificBeliefTrap
EditText of this page
(last edited July 9, 2010)
or FindPage with title or text search