I’d thought let’s start with a suited question?
The answer is not readily available. If you look at history great scientists have been philosophers and vice versa. So a good dividing line between the two is not possible. My answer would be that the human life/world/existence consists of two parts: the outer world which we experience with our senses and the inner world which we feel as our thoughts and feelings. In this light science is concerned with explaining the outside world, whereas philosophy tries to get a hold of the inner world.
any other views? perhaps someone thinks both are the same?
so long as these theories remain in the abstract, they remain philosophy. once they include experiments, they become sciences like psychology, sociology etc. Each of these has roots in philosophy, but evolved into sciences as the need for moving from the abstract to the quantifiable became apparent.
errr... very fitting topic for discussion and I will post on this later, but has anyone read "The Four Dimensions of Philosophy" by Adler ?? the post reminded me of it - the book touches upon the Metaphysical, Moral, Objective, Categorical dimensions of philosophy.
any hypothesis, whether true or false, can fall under the category of philosophy but only those that are proven right become a part of science
[/QUOTE]
that's a very bold statement irem: 500 years ago the body was thought to be build out of 4 fluids, nowadays we don't believe that anymore. Does that mean that what once was a science (the 4 fluids-theory was thought to be proven numerous of times) has now changed into philosophy.
conversely the dream theory of Freud's was thought to be a philosophy, but now we know there is (some) truth in it: is it now science?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Umar Talib: *
errr... very fitting topic for discussion and I will post on this later, but has anyone read "The Four Dimensions of Philosophy" by Adler ?? the post reminded me of it - the book touches upon the Metaphysical, Moral, Objective, Categorical dimensions of philosophy.
[/QUOTE]
i've heard that it is a book worth reading. Haven't read it though, but now since u bring it up, I might as well pay a visit to the library :D
that's a very bold statement irem: 500 years ago the body was thought to be build out of 4 fluids, nowadays we don't believe that anymore. Does that mean that what once was a science (the 4 fluids-theory was thought to be proven numerous of times) has now changed into philosophy.
conversely the dream theory of Freud's was thought to be a philosophy, but now we know there is (some) truth in it: is it now science?
[/QUOTE]
hmmm, interesting question, yes i guess science is a dynamic discipline, its not static
btw id never take scientific knowledge to be the ultimate truth. ultimate truth for me is only the Quran paak.
as for Freud, his work is neither phillosophy or science, i call it the workings of a perverted and sick mind :o :D
btw id never take scientific knowledge to be the ultimate truth. ultimate truth for me is only the Quran paak.
[/quote]
u'll agree with me that noone ever will completely understand the Quraan, right? in that respect even the knowledge we get from the Quraan will be coloured by our preconceptions. In other words: from science we can get knowledge that is shared by many ppl, but will not be the ultimate truth......in contrast, the Quraan containing ultimate truthfull knowledge allows us only to interpret it limitedly, thus making the subjective knowledge not absolute...
[quote]
as for Freud, his work is neither phillosophy or science, i call it the workings of a perverted and sick mind :o :D
[/QUOTE]
you will be astonished how much appicability Freud's theory still has in current psychiatry and psychology :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
Perhaps it comes down to philosophy looking at the "why?" of something with science describing the "how?"...
[/QUOTE]
thas basic question you ask in medical Science is 'WHY'? why does one person get ill and the other doesn't? why does this medicine work and the other doesn't etc etc etc
^ good point Armughal, just a clarification. Philosophy like religion can try to explain things which canot be explained by science but is purely theoretical.
science and philopshy aren't exactly well-defined terms, however much
those idiots teaching u abt the 'scientific methods' and all.
these were ideas developed much later, science is a field that has simply historically and tradiotinally related to what it is today, and philosophy remains all the stuff which cant be tested n all.
however, the gap narrowed with more recent(compared to older ones) scientists like bertrand russell turning to philospohy and with the surge of "scientification" of all fields like yr social sciences.
so u dont need to anymore ramble abt the "exact" difference btw the 2.
if only ppl had any idea the kind of kuchra that got included in western science only a century ago.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Matsui: *
^ good point Armughal, just a clarification. Philosophy like religion can **try* to explain things which canot be explained by science but is purely theoretical.
[/QUOTE]
but then again, philosophy is all about the mind and not about physical state....
some suggest, including adler in his book mentioned by umar talib, that one drawback of philosophy is that its theories and its arguments r insignificant to the actual needs of human beings....
cuz philosophy fails to build houses, to feed the hungry, or clothe the unclad....