Science vs Philosophy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2018, 02:22 AM
RE: Science vs Philosophy
(05-05-2018 11:01 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 10:56 PM)AtheistTech Wrote:  My best argument about the importance of Philosophy is this: Philosophy has been around for around 2500 years and science has been around for only 500 years. Now compare what philosophy has accomplished in those 2500 years compared to the world changing success science has had in the last 500 years.

I'd lightly argue that science has been around a lot longer than 500 years.

When people crafted this 3500y ago, they were doing science. They observed (most probably using other tools), methodically and precisely and obviously developed theories about how the sun behaves in earths sky. They then documented their theory by crafting a tool (based on another science).

[Image: 1600_Himmelsscheibe_von_Nebra_sky_disk_anagoria.jpg]
What they did is called Astronomy and it is definitely a science

@Delta: The materials used (gold and tin) are supposedly from Cornwall. Isnt that interesting? Smile

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
06-05-2018, 02:14 PM
RE: Science vs Philosophy
(05-05-2018 10:58 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(05-05-2018 10:56 PM)AtheistTech Wrote:  My best argument about the importance of Philosophy is this: Philosophy has been around for around 2500 years and science has been around for only 500 years. Now compare what philosophy has accomplished in those 2500 years compared to the world changing success science has had in the last 500 years.

I do not disagree with you, as Carl Sagan once said "Metaphysics has no lab." However, I think it's useful and important to also know ourselves and not just the world around us. And visa versa if that makes sense. It's a part of what helps make a complete individual, someone capable of handling the hardship of life.

Edit^ Also I think it's important to point out that human growth and cognitive development and acquisition of knowledge has been growing exponentially since the beginning. In an exponential growth pattern it will start slow and grow more rapidly as time goes on. So it may not be entirely fair to make the comparison you made since in another 250 years we will have taken another exponential leap forward (if we survive that long lol)
I don't know much about the study of ourselves. I would look to Neuroscience, Psychology, and Neurology for those answers. Philosophy is just playing with words and once in a great while, philosophers come up with a perspective not yet seen which is definitely worthy. I see the study of Religion doing the same thing only with the caveat of it has to do with God's will.

As for the exponential growth, would you agree that during the dark ages, growth was stagnant? When religion ruled society, there was a small niche in the Netherlands where religion had little power and the Netherland's ships traveled to Asia for trade and the Netherlands thrived while the rest of Europe squandered in poverty. Like Mother Theresa, religion, then and now, says that we deserve poverty as it teaches us humility. What load of horse shit!

This is from Encyclopedia Britanica

"Migration period, also called Dark Ages or Early Middle Ages, the early medieval period of western European history—specifically, the time (476–800 ce) when there was no Roman (or Holy Roman) emperor in the West or, more generally, the period between about 500 and 1000, which was marked by frequent warfare and a virtual disappearance of urban life. "

That started 500 to 1000 years after Philosophy started.

“Here, where a thousand
Captains swore grand conquest. . .Tall
Grass their monument.”
― Basho
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2018, 03:55 PM
RE: Science vs Philosophy
(06-05-2018 02:14 PM)AtheistTech Wrote:  As for the exponential growth, would you agree that during the dark ages, growth was stagnant? When religion ruled society, there was a small niche in the Netherlands where religion had little power and the Netherland's ships traveled to Asia for trade and the Netherlands thrived while the rest of Europe squandered in poverty.

When the Netherlands started trading in Asia, the Dark Ages were long over. So you're kind of mixing up your ages here.

Also it's good to keep in mind that the age of exploration didn't necessarily improve things. The Spanish economy was based, for a long time, on gold stolen from the Americas. This destroyed the societies who were exploited for their gold. It also meant that Spain didn't have to modernize its economy. As a result its education was poor, and superstition was the norm. When the gold ran out, Spain was left backwards in relation to the rest of Europe. The proud explorers were left with poverty and superstition as their monuments.

Philosophy which counsels humility, careful poverty, and measures of wealth other than financial, has much to recommend it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Belaqua's post
07-05-2018, 07:25 PM
RE: Science vs Philosophy
(06-05-2018 02:14 PM)AtheistTech Wrote:  Philosophy is just playing with words and once in a great while, philosophers come up with a perspective not yet seen which is definitely worthy.

Yeah, like . . . um . . . science.

Big Grin

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: