Philosophy of Science

[philofra]

W.V. Quine opined that "Philosophy of science is philosophy enough".

What did he mean by that? I have never found an explanation or an opinion about it. What I think he was saying is that since science is so predominant and central to our lives we don't need to philosophizing about anything else. To his mind, I think, he believed that from science we can derive all we needed to know and understand about ourselves and the world. Perhaps it came out as an outburst, as a condemnation of other forms of inquiry into the ultimate nature of reality and how things work.

Then I read "Hope lies in the scientific method" by John Polanyi, a Nobel Laureate of Science. Perhaps he was meaning the same thing as Quine, that through science we can save the day.

[RachelAnn]

Perhaps he was meaning the same thing as Quine, that through science we can save the day.

Maybe science is the answer, the way and the path to all answers... but my guess is that when one "believes in" whatever, it makes "whatever" a sort of religion, a dogma.
Have to make this short - must get dinner on the table...
Happy Hausfrau

[philofra]

Have to make this short - must get dinner on the table...

Science put food on your table, as well as a roof over your head and cloths on your back. One can't say religion did that unless one is delusional.

[RachelAnn]

By "religion" I really meant a faith in the dogmas of any belief system, be it scientism, Protestantism, atheism, Paganism... how one believes, not what one believes

[philofra]

I am not talking Scientism, which refers to an ideology or junk science. No, I am talking about the science of research and discovery, a secular and open discipline. It is an activity that doesn't claim a truth but pursues a truth.

Science also enhances democracy in that its pursuit encourages debate and discourse. In doing so it vitalizes the process, not freeze it in dogma.

[RachelAnn]

Philofra, let me reassure you that I agree.
Science first, please.
I object to blind faith.

[Wootah]

Science put food on your table, as well as a roof over your head and cloths on your back. One can't say religion did that unless one is delusional.

I don't think science did as much as you claim it did.

Science has nothing to do with the distribution of the food or the clothing or the building of the roof unless you are broading the definition to the political 'sciences'.

Science (was/is/always will be) fundamental, bronze to iron swords, makes a huge difference in the quality of each tribe's life. Although they wouldn't of realised it was science.

Science, as I take it you mean, had nothing to do with ensuring you have food on your table, clothes on your back and a roof on your head. Materialism can produce philosophies but not ones that are even remotely likely to benefit the majority and certainly it can't produce philosophies even remotely near the moral worth of the most immoral of religions.

At most the philosophy of science is that we can discover ways to produce so much that everyone, even the oppressed, still gets a good quality of life.

[Nikolai]

"Philosophy of science is philosophy enough".

I think to understand this fully you would have to know the context of Quine's empiricism - namely that theories are always left underdetermined by that facts.

What Quine meant is that the arguments often discussed in philosophy of science (e.g falsfiability, instrumentalism, realism, etc) actually apply to all knowledge. Scientific knowledge is not different, and certainly can't be privileged. Philosophy of science is therefore epistemology itself - the grounds upon which all the other branches of philosophy are based (ethics, politics, aesthetics).

best, Nikolai

[philofra]

Nikolai.

We are in agreement.

[John W. Kelly]

Science put food on your table, as well as a roof over your head and cloths on your back.

It has also brought us the mushroom cloud.

[philofra]

It has also brought us the mushroom cloud.

Every human endeavor has its down side.

[John W. Kelly]

Every human endeavor has its down side.

Yes, the power of science can be the proverbial double edged sword.

[philofra]

Yes, the power of science can be the proverbial double edged sword.

And there lies the contradiction that is life. It is a contradiction that gives contrast, a richness and texture to life.

[Wootah]

I am not talking Scientism, which refers to an ideology or junk science. No, I am talking about the science of research and discovery, a secular and open discipline. It is an activity that doesn't claim a truth but pursues a truth.

Science also enhances democracy in that its pursuit encourages debate and discourse. In doing so it vitalizes the process, not freeze it in dogma.

This is all crazy talk. To honestly ascribe the pursuit of science as anything more than the pursuit of science. It's well known that the big bucks get funnelled to scientists following the prevailing paradigm, it's well known that established scientific journals and institutions don't publish articles that are against the paradigm.

- Science is enhanced by democracy might be more acceptable but why? Surely everyone benefits from science even non-democracies. How does it benefit a non-democracy to not practise science?

- Science is a tool. To make it more than that is dangerous to democracy and frankly too many people are using science as a weapon for whatever agenda they wish to push.

I just don't see a single benefit in ascribing to science any virtue beyond the obvious. It is dangerous to start viewing any community in a democracy as being above reproach.

[philofra]

It is dangerous to start viewing any community in a democracy as being above reproach.

Nobody said science is beyond reproach. In fact, it viscerally attracts reproach, whether it likes it or not. That's what makes it good for democracy. Look, for instance, at the visceral reproaches to the sciences of abortion or climate change. Those debates are good for the community.

You don't get that kind of visceral reproach occurring in the Islamic world, hence the starvation of democracy.