How to compare Philosophy & Science?

[dattaswami]

Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable.

When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.

Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist?

The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.

[Philosphicalous]

Philosophy is a humanist science seeking to solve the problems we all ask

What am I
Where am I
Where am I going

It has nothing whatsoever to do with spiruality.

The best they have come up with so far is Descartes
I fart therefore I stink, or something like that.

[Philosphicalous]

Philosophy, which is the spiritual knowledge, travels in one direction in the circle of research. Science, which is the physical knowledge, travels in the opposite direction in the same circle of research. A Philosopher or a Scientist should travel extensively, so that they will meet at the same point in the circle. If they are in the middle of their journey only, they will be opposite to each other and therefore, will fight with each other. The Philosopher says that God is beyond this world and He is inexplicable. The Scientist says that this world itself is God and accepts the inexplicable points in the nature. The Philosopher says that God pervades all over the world. The Scientist accepts the inexplicable nature of the world, though some concepts of the world are explicable.

When God is inexplicable, the very characteristic nature of the God is only inexplicability. Philosopher calls the explicability as the creation and the inexplicability as God. The explicable part is agreed by both philosopher and scientist. The inexplicable part of the world is also accepted by both. This inexplicability is called as God by the Philosopher and the Scientist calls the same as inexplicability. The Scientist says that there is wire and heat in a hot wire. The Philosopher says that the fire and the wire are co-existing. The only difference is in words. The Scientist calls heat and the Philosopher calls the heat as fire. The wire is the explicable part of the world, which is agreed by all. A Scientist calls the other inexplicable part as a property by calling it as heat. The Philosopher calls the same as the possessor of the property i.e., fire. The intensive heat is fire.

Thus the possessor of a property and the property are one and the same. The Scientist says the independent existence of the inexplicable power as an independent existence of a field of energy. The Philosopher says that there is a substratum of that field of energy, which is called as God and which, is not perceived so far. The Scientist accepts that they have to go still deeper. The Philosopher infers the existence of the substratum in such a deeper state. The argument of the Philosopher is that power cannot independently exist and needs a possessor. Suppose the Sun is not seen due to overlapping cloud, it should not be concluded that the light transmitting through the cloud is independently existing power. The Scientist may see the Sun in future after piercing through the cloud. So, where is the difference or quarrel between a matured Philosopher and a matured Scientist?

The inference of the Philosopher is based on the perception of a similar concept existing in the explicable part of the world. The Scientist does not believe this because it is not a perception of the direct concept. Both have not seen the Sun. Both accept the perception of light. Both accept that their search and research has not reached the end. At this stage the Philosopher infers the Sun, whereas the Scientist does not infer the Sun but still accepts that the final truth is still to be achieved after piercing through the cloud of ignorance. At this point the support for the Philosopher is the Human Incarnation, which preaches the existence of such substratum. If the Scientist accepts the alternative genuine path of the miracles, the human incarnation definitely becomes the final authority about the existence of the possessor of such inexplicable power. If the Scientist has patience to reach the bottom most end, he will become a spiritual philosopher. An impatient Scientist existing in some middle place of the path becomes the atheist.

You may be thinking of metaphysics also a science which does open its doors to higher powers

[nemos]

Philosophy (as a phenomenon, not as a discipline) asks questions and makes assumptions about what the answers might logically be.
Science seeks evidence(by experimentation) confirming or denying the truth of assumptions.

[Walker]

Philosophy (as a phenomenon, not as a discipline) asks questions and makes assumptions about what the answers might logically be.
Science seeks evidence(by experimentation) confirming or denying the truth of assumptions.

Where does the theoretical physicist fit into those limitations?

[nemos]

Where does the theoretical physicist fit into those limitations?

I suppose this would be better answered by a theoretical physicist ?, but as I see it, theoretical physicists both base and draw their ideas on mathematical apparatus and methods of analysis. But even this does not exclude the importance and necessity of experiments.

[Walker]

Where does the theoretical physicist fit into those limitations?

I suppose this would be better answered by a theoretical physicist ?, but as I see it, theoretical physicists both base and draw their ideas on mathematical apparatus and methods of analysis. But even this does not exclude the importance and necessity of experiments.

There may be one out and about around here, but it isn't me. The way I figure it, physicists take the best guess based on their interpretation of the known data. Since everyone does that, then a theoretical physicist has to know more than the average bear to earn professional stripes and to do mind experiments, perhaps of the sort that result in dreams of the double helix, or Einstein's journeys with gravity and light.

How does this apply to the physics of everyone, as a principle?

Answer: Anything is possible, given the right conditions. If you knew everything about every element, and every element in combination with every other element that comprised a specfic condition, then you would know the future and perhaps as much as God. Therefore, the best physicist is one who knows the most about every element individually and in combination that comprises a condition, and he, or I guess she (sarcasm), could make accurate mind experiments.

Which is what leads to a plausible hypothesis, says the layman.

[nemos]

... take the best guess based on their interpretation ...

The point is that where interpretations begin, objectivity ends. There can be an infinite number of interpretations of the same research result. Of course we can limit them to certain concepts based on certain dogmas. For example:
- The earth is flat, or
- The Earth is spherical and space is 3D, but if either
- neither the Earth nor space is 3D at all, and therefore any interpretations based on the 3D dogma are fundamentally flawed

I'm not sure about philosophy in general, but the goal of science is to minimize the subjective component as much as possible without ever forgetting it.

"there are some provisions that a scientist accepts in advance as methodological philosophical preconditions of his activity. These preconditions can be called dogmas, because they are not proved, but are taken on faith.

First of all, such a dogma is the objectivity of the existence of the world and the regularities to which this world obeys.
The second dogma, recognised in essence by any scientist, is the certainty that he is extracting objective truth about the world.
The third dogma generally accepted in science is that the world is recognised as 'logical'."

[godelian]

Science is an epistemic method, i.e. a knowledge domain defined by its justification method.

Every statement about an stubborn, observable pattern which has been experimentally tested in order to look for counterexamples, is effectively scientific.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is only bound by the requirement of non-contradiction.

In that sense, all science is philosophy but not all philosophy is science.

[jasonlava]

Absolutely, your distinction between science and philosophy is on point. Science, rooted in empirical testing and observation, seeks to understand the world through a systematic, evidence-based approach. It explores patterns and principles through experimentation.

Philosophy, in its broadest sense, encompasses a range of inquiries that may not always rely on empirical methods. It's more open-ended, exploring concepts like ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology, often guided by logical reasoning and non-contradiction.

Your insight that all science is a subset of philosophy acknowledges the foundational nature of philosophical principles in shaping our approach to understanding the world. It's a fascinating interplay between these two disciplines, each offering unique perspectives on the pursuit of knowledge.