Does science trump philosophy?

[Treeshepherd]

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 think it was E.O. Wilson who described the evolutionary argument for altruism, based on his theory of group selection. In social animals entire groups are subject to natural selection, in addition to individuals. Groups that contain self-sacrificing, sharing, and cooperating individuals are more successful, and therefore pass on more common genes than dysfunctional groups. So, even if an individual takes a self-sacrificing risk for the sake of his tribe and dies as a result, his close relatives pass on their genes and so his gene pool is promoted.

If you strictly deal in biological/evolutionary terms, you might argue that science explained altruism and therefore trumped philosophy. I wouldn't go that far, personally, as someone who appreciates the value of philosophy and religion. But, that's one argument.

 

[Jim ryan]

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 think it was E.O. Wilson who described the evolutionary argument for altruism, based on his theory of group selection. In social animals entire groups are subject to natural selection, in addition to individuals. Groups that contain self-sacrificing, sharing, and cooperating individuals are more successful, and therefore pass on more common genes than dysfunctional groups. So, even if an individual takes a self-sacrificing risk for the sake of his tribe and dies as a result, his close relatives pass on their genes and so his gene pool is promoted.

If you strictly deal in biological/evolutionary terms, you might argue that science explained altruism and therefore trumped philosophy. I wouldn't go that far, personally, as someone who appreciates the value of philosophy and religion. But, that's one argument.

For someone who others might claim is Altruistic by giving his life for the sake of others, what if his mind was just impacted so hard that he could not take anymore, so he just exploded in rage and Did all the damage that he could, because he could take no more?

Philosophy demands that we seek the truth from all sides.

 

[Unkotare]

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.
....

You're a dim little weirdo. Take it to the conspiracy forum.

 

[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.

Actually mass media....

Which is motivated by politics and greed...

 

[Jim ryan]

some people simply offer nothing of value, so you just have to look past them.

 

[Unkotare]

some people simply offer nothing of value, so you just have to look past them.

Maybe if you got yourself even a little education before commenting people wouldn't keep looking past you.

 

[amrchaos]

What is Philosophy?
Is Science related to it? If so, How?

How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?
What are the criteria to make such judgement?

Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?

 

[Jim ryan]

What is Philosophy?
Is Science related to it? If so, How?

How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?
What are the criteria to make such judgement?

Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?

All are good questions. Now all you have to do is enter one question at a time and into your browser bar and hit go and start reading.

 

[Unkotare]

What is Philosophy?
Is Science related to it? If so, How?

How does one subject matter 'trumps' another subject?
What are the criteria to make such judgement?

Come to think about it, I don't really understand the thread topic. When one talk of 'Philosophy' , which 'Philosophy'?

All are good questions. Now all you have to do is enter one question at a time and into your browser bar and hit go and start reading.

= YOU haven't the first clue about the subject.

 

[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.

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

Actually mass media....

Which is motivated by politics and greed...

Both 'spiritually-refined' attributes in the human species.

It's difficult to escape our spirituality and the role it has played in our development.

 

[Boss]

Philosophy demands that we seek the truth from all sides.

And so does Science when you think about it. There is not a thing in Science that disproves God or Spiritual Nature. If anything, the more fascinated we become with the inner-workings of our universe down to the tiniest parts of atoms to the concepts of quantum multiverses, the more it suggests something extremely profound as the source. The less you can explain it away with random chance and happenstance.

Science is a never-ending search for answers, it does not draw conclusions. People often use science to draw conclusions and all through history, science has made fools of those who proclaim their conclusions empirical. The moment you have drawn a conclusion, that literally means science is finished working, there is no more science can do. From that point of conclusion you have transferred from science to faith. You now have faith in a conclusion. Science does not share your faith. It remains silent... having a beer down at the pub... waiting for the next time you are ready for Science to ask questions and explore possibilities again.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

My thoughts exactly. The "Boss" was far more interested in sharing his own philosophy and his relationship with his sister, whom he is obviously afraid of so defers to her in conversation than answering the question posed by the OP.

Clearly "Boss" is still hung up on the "daddy god". He just can't define it. He also has little use for science as he starts off attempting to label it is as it was at the time of blood letting with the earth at the center of the known universe.

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.

The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....

You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.

 

[HUGGY]

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....

You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.

I have no religious beliefs.

 

[Boss]

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....

You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.

I have no religious beliefs.

Funny... sounds like you do.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise....

You should take your religious beliefs over to the religion forum.

I have no religious beliefs.

Clearly you do.

 

[midcan5]

"If all the problems of science were solved, it would not touch any of life's problems." Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

[rdean]

always

 

[Boss]

My thoughts exactly. The "Boss" was far more interested in sharing his own philosophy and his relationship with his sister, whom he is obviously afraid of so defers to her in conversation than answering the question posed by the OP.

I do like to share my philosophy and sometimes I will talk about my sister the Baptist who calls me her "atheist brother." We have a great relationship, we just don't talk about our beliefs in God. I feel like I answered the question posed by the OP. Is there anything specific you want to discuss?

Clearly "Boss" is still hung up on the "daddy god". He just can't define it. He also has little use for science as he starts off attempting to label it is as it was at the time of blood letting with the earth at the center of the known universe.

I have defined it in the past and have no trouble defining it again. The thing I define as "God" is Spiritual Nature. So what is Spiritual Nature? It's the constant cosmic wave of spiritual energy coursing through our universe. Our souls are a part of that. Science can't provide physical evidence of it because it is not physical, it is spiritual. BUT... That is NOT to say that Science won't ever be able to discover evidence in the future. Science never stops asking questions.

I have absolutely NO problems with Science. I will not allow ignorant people to pervert Science and use it as some sort of weapon to do battle against Religion. Some people have chosen to abandon belief in God for a belief in Science as their God, and this causes them to start to think their "God" is infallible and perfect... because that's built-in human nature. But Science is far from perfect. It does not draw conclusions, it can only predict probabilities of possibility.

Indeed, Every one of the biggest breakthroughs in science have come from those who challenged conventional wisdom, did not accept the scientific conclusions made by others, would not accept that we knew the entire empirical truth.

There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.

The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires.

Congratulations! You have become a faith-based believer!

 

[HUGGY]

"There is no god and there was no creation intelligent or otherwise.

The only meaning to the existence of homo sapiens is that at this point in time we have developed enough scientific toys to possibly extend our stay til the end of universal time when it is suggested that the cosmos collapses or perhaps and more likely artificially destroy ourselves long before the next great collision or certainly when our sun expires."

Congratulations! You have become a faith-based believer!

Nonsense.

Faith is a reaction to and equal to the size of the carrot offered. I do not believe in any science that promises me anything more than the benefits I receive from the medications science has delivered that are extending my life and making what it cannot cure at least make more bearable.

I believe that science has had a hand in the preservation of this country and our way of life. I certainly do not have faith in those that have positioned themselves the gate keepers of the scientific discoveries care about me personally.

We here in the USA have been fortunate to have ":won the lottery" in a sense. But still our leaders babble on and on about God and their enemies babble on about their Gods all of which is just so much nonsense to me.

If science was so beneficial to us as individuals we could have used this knowledge to radically reduce births of stupid people and really extend ours, those that understand that science offers more to us the living and our stays here on earth.

Sure science has won many skirmishes against the true enemy of humanity which is disease. Still we offer the drastically poor a benefit for spitting out more mouths to feed. We seem to value stupid people more than ourselves. When bad things happen to us our representatives say "pray" to God for the victims and their families. I am just worn out on the nonsense. I resent the exposing of the stupidity of faith as transference to some other "faith".

Sorry, I have no other faith to substitute for the ridiculous faith of religion. I do not step on cockroaches to make room for a different brand of vermin.