When it comes to the relationship between Philosophy and Theology a popular way of describing this relationship is as follows:

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology; Philosophy helps elucidate Theology and prevents it from falling into superstition"

But of course, we can agree that Theology is bunk, so would you agree with a similar statement but with regards to Philosophy and Science?

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science; Philosophy helps elucidate Science and prevents it from falling into pseudoscience"

Would you agree with that assessment? Why, why not?

Dolorian wrote:
"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology; Philosophy helps elucidate Theology and prevents it from falling into superstition"

A proper philosophy would expose theology as a superstition in my opinion.

Dolorian wrote:
"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science; Philosophy helps elucidate Science and prevents it from falling into pseudoscience"

I thought science was a philosophy and its own rules are what keep it from falling into pseudoscience, no?

Philosophy is dead.....its time is past....we don't need it and as you say, it just encourages the theists.

Dolorian wrote:When it comes to the relationship between Philosophy and Theology a popular way of describing this relationship is as follows:

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology; Philosophy helps elucidate Theology and prevents it from falling into superstition"

The problem with that being simply that theology is the study of the history of organised superstition.

But of course, we can agree that Theology is bunk,

I wouldn't necessarily describe it as bunk, I prefer to go with the science of making shit up about made-up shit. That's a bit glib, though, and doesn't do the subject justice. Theology is really the study of what we've thought about magic. And yes, I do mean magic, because that's what all theistic propositions are. Once you see them in that light, you also understand their value. They do have value, of course, because they teach us how NOT to think.

so would you agree with a similar statement but with regards to Philosophy and Science?

Not remotely. Philosophy could reasonably be regarded as a science, in a certain sense. Philosophy is, like science, a didactic tool. Its remit is in teaching us how to think, largely by teaching us what we've thought in the past, why we've thought that, and what our justifications for thinking that were. It's mostly the art of learning how to ask the right questions.

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science; Philosophy helps elucidate Science and prevents it from falling into pseudoscience"

Would you agree with that assessment? Why, why not?

To some degree, yes. It certainly helps elucidate science, but it's a double-edged sword, in that science also helps to elucidate philosophy. Philosophy, properly practised, begins with consistency. There are those hereabouts who think that's the end of the story, which is why you get such bollocks as firmly-held ontological conclusions. What they miss is what consistency is about. They think that logical consistency is sufficient to draw conclusions, but overlook the fact that logical tests aren't the only ones. Mostly, though, they overlook the extremely simple fact that any construct that is logically consistent with every situation are worthless from an epistemological perspective. These are those who cling to idiotic notions such as Idealism, Solipsism, etc. Of course those constructs are logically consistent, and indeed consistent with observations, not least because they're consistent with every possible test that can be levelled at them, which means that there's no possible way to test whether or not they're true.

Many millions of words have been written on these topics by the denizens of this place, both here and on the forum from which this forum sprang, but it's fairly simple to distil it into a few phrases:

That which is consistent with every possible observation is unfalsifiable, and thus untestable.
That which is untestable is epistemologically without utility.
That which is without utility should be discarded.

It's pretty straightforward, though seemingly beyond graspability by some peeps, such as jamest, whose trivial observation that observation and observed are distinct (though despite being beaten about the head with this until even the rest of us are punch-drunk, seems unable to formulate it correctly) informs his entire worldview, when really it should only be a minor caveat.

At bottom, there is logic, which tests for consistency. Philosophy is the history of logical tests for consistency. Science is the philosophy of testing for consistency against observation.

In short, science and philosophy aren't nearly as distinct as some would have you believe. Philosophy teaches us how to ask the right questions, and science tells us how to answer them. If observation isn't included in your philosophy, all you're really engaged in is wibble.

Sorry for the off-the-cuff rant, but this is an area I'm really interested in, and is the core of a book I've been working on for some years. Really, I'm still trying to distil this down to a chapter, when I could actually deliver a full volume on this topic alone.

Oh, and because kennyc posted while I was typing, pay no attention to him. He's the man trying to show you the man behind the curtain. There is no man behind the curtain, only more curtain, and he's talking shit. He thinks that philosophy has no value at all, which tells you all you need to know.

Animavore wrote:A proper philosophy would expose theology as a superstition in my opinion.

I understand why you'd say this, but really you're talking about the use of theology as apologetics. There are theologians who don't believe, and who simply study the history of what we've thought about deities.

I thought science was a philosophy and its own rules are what keep it from falling into pseudoscience, no?

Bingo!

Science is a branch of philosophy, namely that which is concerned with the consistency of ideas with observation.

Science answers questions pertaining to observational reality through employment of the scientific method. Though its conclusions are not absolute because it is an inductive discipline relying on evidence to determine the truth value of any testable hypothesis. They are however at any given time as accurate as possible. Philosophy by contrast answers questions which may or may not pertain to observational reality but cannot be tested. So its conclusions are not as verifiable as those of science as they use only logic and reason. So they are not as sound since something which is philosophically true may also be scientifically false. The only discipline that provides definitive answers is mathematics which uses proof to validate the truth value of any hypothesis. And proof by default is absolute. The laws of physics are expressed in mathematical form so the relationship therefore between science and mathematics is more profound that that between science and philosophy

kennyc wrote:Philosophy is dead.....its time is past....we don't need it and as you say, it just encourages the theists.

Philosophy is dead? You actually think that we live amidst times when we no longer need - using reason - to question any aspect of our lives?

Are you fucking stupid?

That's a genuine question, because if you are I'll have to go easy on you. If not, then reap the ensuing whirlwind.

jamest wrote:

kennyc wrote:Philosophy is dead.....its time is past....we don't need it and as you say, it just encourages the theists.

Philosophy is dead? You actually think that we live amidst times when we no longer need - using reason - to question any aspect of our lives?

Are you fucking stupid?

That's a genuine question, because if you are I'll have to go easy on you. If not, then reap the ensuing whirlwind.

It's not dead. Just that guys like you make us want to take it out and shoot it in the head.

surreptitious57 wrote: Philosophy by contrast answers questions which may or may not pertain to observational reality but cannot be tested.

Elementary fact: If the answers cannot be tested, they're not answers. Philosophy doesn't answer questions, it asks them only.

The only discipline that provides definitive answers is mathematics

Categorically untrue. Science provides definitive answers, as long as the question is properly formulated. Example:

What will happen when I let go of this pencil?

Let go of the pencil and watch it fall to the ground.

Answer: It fell to the ground.

This question was definitively answered by science.

The laws of physics are expressed in mathematical form so the relationship therefore between science and mathematics is more profound that that between science and philosophy

This is just silly, and I debunked it before you posted. Read up.

Dolorian wrote:When it comes to the relationship between Philosophy and Theology a popular way of describing this relationship is as follows:

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Theology; Philosophy helps elucidate Theology and prevents it from falling into superstition"

But of course, we can agree that Theology is bunk, so would you agree with a similar statement but with regards to Philosophy and Science?

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science; Philosophy helps elucidate Science and prevents it from falling into pseudoscience"

Would you agree with that assessment? Why, why not?

No, i wouldn't agree with that statement. Vast swathes of philosophy, are just either pointing out the bleeding obvious, or claiming dreams (thoughts) are facts.

surreptitious57 wrote: The only discipline that provides definitive answers is mathematics which uses proof to validate the truth value of any hypothesis.

Thinking on a little more (sorry, a bit slow tonight, due to the 2 bottle of wine), another means by which science provides definitive answers is via falsification. Falsification provides the definitive answer 'this hypothesis is false'.

That, in fact, is why falsifiability is important to science. Popper, in fact, thought that it solved the problem of induction. He was wrong about that, but that's understandable.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

jamest wrote:

kennyc wrote:Philosophy is dead.....its time is past....we don't need it and as you say, it just encourages the theists.

Philosophy is dead? You actually think that we live amidst times when we no longer need - using reason - to question any aspect of our lives?

Are you fucking stupid?

That's a genuine question, because if you are I'll have to go easy on you. If not, then reap the ensuing whirlwind.

It's not dead. Just that guys like you make us want to take it out and shoot it in the head.

That's the only means you have of stifling me, because your capacity to reason is akin to someone who has been shot in the head and survived.

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote: Philosophy by contrast answers questions which may or may not pertain to observational reality but cannot be tested.

Elementary fact: If the answers cannot be tested, they're not answers. Philosophy doesn't answer questions, it asks them only.

The only discipline that provides definitive answers is mathematics

Categorically untrue. Science provides definitive answers, as long as the question is properly formulated. Example:

What will happen when I let go of this pencil?

Let go of the pencil and watch it fall to the ground.

Answer: It fell to the ground.

This question was definitively answered by science.

The laws of physics are expressed in mathematical form so the relationship therefore between science and mathematics is more profound that that between science and philosophy

This is just silly, and I debunked it before you posted. Read up.

I agree with most of what you've said in this thread, but I think you've been careless with the statement that Philosophy only ASKS questions, and answers none. That is a very narrow definition of philosophy, and is one that I can't find listed in any definitions source I have on hand.

It is always a problem that a lot of humans ARE sloppy in how they use important words such as Philosophy, and that is why we have a number of posts here already, declaring that Philosophy is dead or useless, or some sort of pompously phrased excuse for what some here like to call wibble.

I, on the other hand, have grown up under the definition that Philosophy is the overarching systematic framework that we choose to use to organize our perception of, and interaction with, all of existence. This is WHY Science is accurately defined as a subset of Philosophy, and why a statement such as "philosophy is useless" is ludicrous. One must HAVE a philosophy up and running to MAKE such an idiotic statement.

It is at the heart of most participants in this forum, that they have selected the scientific method to be their primary tool for managing all information which comes to them. This is not a scientific act on their part, it is a philosophical one, because scientific method is not thrust upon us by existence. If it were, our forebears would not have had to fight to make it the prominent approach used today. The existence of that long and ongoing struggle alone, is proof that an overarching PHILOSOPHY is at play here.

Philosophy had its time. It's done. It's been completely subsumed into other areas. It is currently useless.

Believe what you will based on how you 'have grown up' that's gotta be truth.

kennyc wrote::rofl: Philosophy had its time. It's done. It's been completely subsumed into other areas. It is currently useless.

Believe what you will based on how you 'have grown up' that's gotta be truth.

You're probably the most fundamental naive realist materialist I've ever encountered. Have you no shame?

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
The only discipline that provides definitive answers is mathematics

Science provides definitive answers as long as the question is properly formulated

I should have said that mathematics is the only discipline that always provide definitive answers

Because scientific evidence is not always absolute whereas mathematical proof is

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
The only discipline that provides definitive answers is mathematics

Science provides definitive answers as long as the question is properly formulated

I should have said that mathematics is the only discipline that always provide definitive answers

Because scientific evidence is not always absolute whereas mathematical proof is

How obtuse can one be? Go and read about Cantor. There's not a SINGLE mathematical proof that is absolute. Even the most famous mathematician in the world has proved this.

What more needs to be said, other than to have a fucking word with yourself?


Fucking unbelievable.

The definition of proof is that which is beyond all doubt and not just reasonable doubt

And all equations by default are examples of this [ one plus one equals two for example ]

Philosophy is really a vast subject area, and is at its best when it asks questions about things that cannot [at least for the present] rely on empirical evidence to form a tentative conclusion. Of necessity, and indeed inclination, its deal with evidence-free models-models where there is no empirical falsifiability. It seeks to build self-consistent models. The lack of empirical verification may only be a temporary condition. A progress in methodology or technology may allow what was previously a question that could only be framed logically become one where empirical tests become available.
Philosophy can thus prepare a coherent narrative until such time an empirical test becomes viable. For example, whole of genome studies are now possible [cheaper methods and technology] , allowing scientific questions to be asked and answered about how the genomes of populations [or of at least statistically-valid sample means] behave over time.
I find it interesting that quasi-Lamarckism has made a come back in the form of epigenetics. This is a wonderful reminded that all scientific theory is tentative, and welcomes, and indeed requires review.

surreptitious57 wrote:The definition of proof is that which is beyond all doubt and not just reasonable doubt

And all equations by default are examples of this [ one plus one equals two for example ]

NO. In biology, 1+1 =3 [eucaryotes] 1 =2 =4 =8 =16=32 ......in procaryotes!

"All bachelors are unmarried" is an absolute and self-evident truth however.