Does science trump philosophy?

[neither]

An answer at this website. What do you think?

Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think

"Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book The Meaning of Human Existence, knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:

What are we and why?

Where do we come from?

Where are we most likely to be headed?

Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."

 

[Sidekick]

What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.

 

[Boss]

Actually.... Science IS philosophy. In fact, it was originally called "natural philosophy" in the days of Issac Newton. The scientific method itself follows a philosophical logic order to discover. This has often resulted in theories based almost entirely in philosophical presumptions and logical hypothesis. So to me, it's rather difficult to draw a clear distinction between the two. Science, I admit, seems to have more rigid control variables and supporting physical data, but many people call themselves "scientists practicing science" when they are nothing but glorified philosophers. (Neil DeGrasse Tyson come to mind here.)

Science does not draw conclusions. That seems to be something a lot of so-called "science people" don't like to hear. Science can only predict a probability of possibility... HUMANS take that and draw conclusion. We often hear someone say "it's a proven scientific fact" but that's really not true. There are no "proven scientific facts" because Science doesn't conclude. There are things science supports with evidence and we believe are true for now but things can always change. Science never stops asking questions. Many things science once thought was the case have turned out to be totally wrong. So we have to always have an open mind with Science and understand that it can sometimes prove to be wrong. We don't have all the information, we'll never know all the information of all things in our universe. Yet... the human ego is quite arrogant about this, we always assume that we know everything there is to know. Once you as a human have drawn a conclusion from Science, you have abandoned science for faith in the conclusion you've made. Science can do no more. Conclusion means the science has ended... it's down at the pub having a beer now, you are left with your faith.

As many here know, I am not a religious person. My sister, the devout Baptist, refers to me as her "Atheist brother." I am not an Atheist because I do believe in a higher spiritual power, and I am alright with calling it "God" for sake of conversation. My God is not a religious one, it is spiritual in nature. It doesn't have a dogma, it doesn't possess human characteristics and emotions. It doesn't need to hate, love, sympathize, console, forgive, reprimand or punish. It certainly doesn't require pleasing by mortal human beings. Think of any force you can imagine that is greater than you... does it care about what you think or do? The omniscient and omnipotent Spiritual God certainly doesn't have such a need.

Religions are the byproduct of human spirituality. They are the evidence that humans do make some kind of intrinsic spiritual connection to something greater than self. I believe this is responsible for all of human achievement and we could have never evolved so far without it. The drawback to religions is, as the source link points out, inherently flawed because they are created by man. Religions have done a lot of good and a lot of bad through history, and it's important we maintain that perspective. While we can categorize religions as philosophy, human spirituality predates religion by many thousands of years and it remains our most defining characteristic as a species. This makes spirituality more than just a philosophy.

On the matter of what trumps what... I think neither can trump the other. Science is excellent at explaining to us HOW things happen, but only Philosophy can tackle the question of WHY things happen. Some 'god-haters' will lament how man obviously invented God to explain the unexplained but this is not true... that's why man invented Science. I personally believe that everything which encompasses Science, all the laws and physical principles, all the elements and compounds, all the constants of cosmology and properties, the sheer ability to predict reliably what will likely happen... all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine.

 

[Unkotare]

Posing the question suggests an inability to understand either.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

An answer at this website. What do you think?

Edward O. Wilson Science Not Philosophy Will Explain the Meaning of Existence Big Think

"Biologist Edward O. Wilson, a two-time Pulitzer Prize recipient and the author of the new book The Meaning of Human Existence, knew that it was vital that he define "meaning" early on in his book, lest he be attacked by a hornet's nest of philosophers. Thus, he identifies the meaning of meaning as:

What are we and why?

Where do we come from?

Where are we most likely to be headed?

Wilson believes those questions cannot be explained with religion for two reasons. First, because every religious faith has a different creation story that, almost categorically, is in competition with every other creation story. Second, because every religious faith is a product of human culture. To assume that human culture can explain meaning is to put a whole lot of trust in introspection, yet Wilson says we can't discover meaning just by thinking about it. The facts lie elsewhere."

I believe Science is the development of a hypothesis and the research to prove it's truth. I believe Philosophy is the worship of the mind without God - the discussing of truths, the pondering of truths without the least desire to follow through and take it into the heart to receive it and act upon it. Therein reaping its rewards.

I prefer to hear from a man who has sought God with all his heart and heard from heaven.

 

[Unkotare]

I believe Science is the development of a hypothesis and the research to prove it's truth. I believe Philosophy is the worship of the mind without God -....

You're wrong.

 

[neither]

Posing the question suggests an inability to understand either.

True, there are not that many of us who know everything, present company excluded.

 

[PK1]

Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
"all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine."
You were imagining your testament.

 

[PK1]

Does science trump philosophy?

No, they complement one another.
One provides evidence, and the other attempts to explain the data patterns from a rational perspective that influenced the scientific data collection in the first place.

We have science, and we have philosophy of science.
We have different kinds of science, and different philosophical perspectives.
There is Philosophy of Physics, Philosophy of Biology, Philosophy of Psychology, etc.

 

[Boss]

Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
"all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine."
You were imagining your testament.

I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.

 

[PK1]

Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
"all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine."
You were imagining your testament.

I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.

Before.making an assumption like "Human spirituality exists", how about defining it?
Does it differ from a dog's "spirituality"?

Unless some rational clarity is presented, spirituality is an emotion perceived in your brain and does not exist outside your skull.

 

[Boss]

Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
"all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine."
You were imagining your testament.

I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.

Before.making an assumption like "Human spirituality exists", how about defining it?
Does it differ from a dog's "spirituality"?

Unless some rational clarity is presented, spirituality is an emotion perceived in your brain and does not exist outside your skull.

Does a dog have spirituality? Show me some evidence?

Human spirituality is the intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man. In fact, it is difficult to explain human spirituality as any kind of evolved emotion or imagination because there is no basis of origin found in nature. We didn't obtain this attribute from the monkeys because they would still have it and they don't. So where did it evolve from? We're the only creatures who actively worship something spiritual, or greater than self. Again.. it is our most defining attribute as a species.

Now this is usually where BreezeWood chimes in with a picture of a pansy or praying mantis and claims that as evidence other living things are also spiritual in their own way. I don't reject that theory or idea, maybe he's right? Still, it doesn't fare well for the argument against a higher power or man's supposed invention of such a thing if it's happening elsewhere in nature.

 

[PK1]

Looks like you ran out of explanatory gas at the end with this:
"all of this is a testament to a highly-intelligent power greater than we can imagine."
You were imagining your testament.

I don't need an explanation. Human spirituality exists and we have ample evidence of it which spans the history of human civilization. It is our most defining attribute as a species. You can certainly claim that you don't believe in anything greater than self but the vast majority of human beings have always believed in something greater and always will.

Before.making an assumption like "Human spirituality exists", how about defining it?
Does it differ from a dog's "spirituality"?

Unless some rational clarity is presented, spirituality is an emotion perceived in your brain and does not exist outside your skull.

Does a dog have spirituality? Show me some evidence?

Human spirituality is the intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man. In fact, it is difficult to explain human spirituality as any kind of evolved emotion or imagination because there is no basis of origin found in nature. We didn't obtain this attribute from the monkeys because they would still have it and they don't. So where did it evolve from? We're the only creatures who actively worship something spiritual, or greater than self. Again.. it is our most defining attribute as a species.

Now this is usually where BreezeWood chimes in with a picture of a pansy or praying mantis and claims that as evidence other living things are also spiritual in their own way. I don't reject that theory or idea, maybe he's right? Still, it doesn't fare well for the argument against a higher power or man's supposed invention of such a thing if it's happening elsewhere in nature.

When you say things like this -
"intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man." ...
- you are generalizing way way beyond your own experience & knowledge base to fit your subjective, rosy-colored view of man as a "civilized creature" ... when he is not killing other humans, taking advantage of them economically, or killing other animals for personal convenience. Yes, I understand there is variability in the gene pool & developed brains/minds, and therefore many exceptions.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, your so-called "spirit" is a subjective emotion-based belief that provides motivation for your future behavioral patterns. Once your brain dies, so too does your "spirit".

 

[BULLDOG]

What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.

That's a really dumb question

 

[Boss]

When you say things like this -
"intrinsic belief that humans have had since they became civilized creatures of something greater than self. It's not an emotion, it's an intrinsic awareness we have as a species and one that has always persisted in man." ...
- you are generalizing way way beyond your own experience & knowledge base to fit your subjective, rosy-colored view of man as a "civilized creature" ... when he is not killing other humans, taking advantage of them economically, or killing other animals for personal convenience. Yes, I understand there is variability in the gene pool & developed brains/minds, and therefore many exceptions.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, your so-called "spirit" is a subjective emotion-based belief that provides motivation for your future behavioral patterns. Once your brain dies, so too does your "spirit".

No, actually... YOU are the one who is generalizing way beyond your own experience and knowledge to fit your agenda. Here, you are taking exception to "civilized creatures" with the admonition of "...when he is not killing other humans, taking advantage of them economically, or killing other animals for personal convenience." As if to say, civilization and spirituality are hogwash because we keep on killing each other or taking advantage of others.

No one has argued that humans being spiritual makes them immune to wrongdoing. In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. But wars are a part of human civilization, as fucked up as that may seem to you.

Now, you demand some kind of "demonstration" of spirituality.... but this becomes a problem because you expect a physical demonstration for something that is not physical in nature. It's akin to demanding some sort of physical proof of love... can you do that? Can you show me what percentage of love you have for your mother and how it may vary in percentage to the love you have for your sister or father? Of course you can't because "love" is not a physical property.

Love is an emotion, but then... MOST of our emotions are driven by human spirituality in one way or another. You state that "Once your brain dies, so too does your spirit"... but how can this be possible if you've already determined there is no spirit and no physical proof of one? Where is your physical evidence that the spirit dies? How can a spirit die if it is never physically living?

You want to argue that spirituality is simply emotion, but we can look to biology and we don't find any evidence elsewhere in nature of this phenomenon. You have no explanation for this because there isn't a good one. Anything you come up with is contradictory to what biology shows and even the theories of people like Darwin. We are blessed with an intrinsic awareness of something greater than ourselves. This is what makes us different and it's clearly our most defining attribute as a species of life. It has what has enabled us to climb down from the trees and come out of the jungles to create, invent, design, think, philosophize, push our boundaries of knowledge further and further.

 

[Unkotare]

In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....

No, probably not.

 

[Boss]

In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....

No, probably not.

Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.

 

[Unkotare]

In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....

No, probably not.

Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.

Politics and greed are the real movers behind wars supposedly motivated by religion.

 

[Jim ryan]

What or who is science? Is he/she/it a conscious being in his/her/its own right, such as an individual, natural person? Seems that people who believe in science don't really know the answer to that, or they really believe in something that should be called Sciencegod instead.

how many scientists report their findings to the general public?

Science is controlled by the government that pays most of the scientist or by private industry that pays most of those scientists and in which case, anything discovered must first go through channels and is only reported when mass media does the reporting.

There was one recent case about finding dinosaur DNA and a Mary Schweitzer got run over the coals because of it.

She was forced to recant her own findings.

 

[Jim ryan]

In fact, human spiritual beliefs are probably responsible for more deaths by wars than anything. ....

No, probably not.

Well you'll need to support that with more than your opinion.

Politics and greed are the real movers behind wars supposedly motivated by religion.

Actually mass media now plays the biggest role in wars, as it controls politicians and the hearts and minds of the general public, that were never taught to think for themselves.