Is philosophy no longer relevant?

[Jabberwocky]

So basically puts out a guess at what it thinks is the right answer, but doesnt bother to test or back up its guess with empirical data?

Thats what I would think, philosphy is a broad term, like art. I see it as part of science, but not science on its own.
Would we even have bothered looking for the fundamental workings of the universe if we didn`t bother thinking about it.

[ghoti]

Thats what I would think, philosphy is a broad term, like art. I see it as part of science, but not science on its own.
Would we even have bothered looking for the fundamental workings of the universe if we didn`t bother thinking about it.

So philosophy is asking the questions and science is getting the answers?

[joelus]

So philosophy is asking the questions and science is getting the answers?

(1) what are the aims of science?
(2) how should one interpret the results of science?
(3) can science answer these questions?
(4) what are the grounds of validity of scientific reasoning?
(5) were these scientifically established?
(6) is Ockham's razor, as used by science, scientific or philosophical?

Answers based in science only, please

[Rocket Raccoon]

Scientist need to create the perfect dagga plant so I may give the world it's greatest philosopher.

Your move science.

[nogard]

So philosophy is asking the questions and science is getting the answers?

This is what I wanted to post.

And this

Would we even have bothered looking for the fundamental workings of the universe if we didn`t bother thinking about it.

[Unhappy438]

There is an aspect to philosophy that annoys me though, and that would be the layers of philosophical bull**** that people with specific agendas use to obfuscate the fact that they either don't really have anything to say and/or are making claims for which there is simply no evidence.

One way or the other, as long as we are trying to figure **** out, whatever our methods, that's only a good thing.

Completely agree

[ghoti]

(1) what are the aims of science?

To quantify and describe our knowledge on the natural world. Its there to figure out what is real and what is not real. To show us how stuff really works.

(2) how should one interpret the results of science?

By looking at the data, testing the facts, using empirical evidence and testable experimentation to remove bias to come to a conclusion, even if its not the one you wanted. It should also undergo peer review. I feel this is a big difference between the way science and philosophy work. In science you are meant to look at the empirical evidence and draw conclusions. Conclusions are derived from the facts. In philosophy I feel you look at conclusions and try rationalize the facts to get there.

(3) can science answer these questions?

Without it, you would not have had the Internet or your computer to even ask me the questions. Concepts like computers, robots, satellites and such would have been science fiction not really philosophy that brought it to be.

(4) what are the grounds of validity of scientific reasoning?

Not sure what you are asking but I think the answer is for something to be scientific is has to comply with the scientific method.

(5) were these scientifically established?

I think evolved is a better word than established. As we know more we improve the scientific method.

(6) is Ockham's razor, as used by science, scientific or philosophical?

Philosophical I would think. In science the simplest answer is not always the right answer, and using 'Ockham's' razor could land you in a whole heap of wrong. It might be good enough for the hypothesis state, but anything you state in scientific theory should be testable. A small example. You find a rock in South America that matches a rock in Africa. You can confirm that both pieces were from the same original rock. Using Ockham's razor one might think that the simplest answer... like, "someone brought the rock here" would be correct. A more complex answer which involves plate tectonics and continental drift might not enter your mind. Im not saying Ockham's razor is useless. It has its place informally. It just can not be relied on.

Answers based in science only, please

Is that like Chinese?

[joelus]

The idea here is that it is impossible to take philosophy out of science - science itself is a philosophy:

To quantify and describe our knowledge on the natural world. Its there to figure out what is real and what is not real. To show us how stuff really works.

By looking at the data, testing the facts, using empirical evidence and testable experimentation to remove bias to come to a conclusion, even if its not the one you wanted. It should also undergo peer review. I feel this is a big difference between the way science and philosophy work. In science you are meant to look at the empirical evidence and draw conclusions. Conclusions are derived from the facts. In philosophy I feel you look at conclusions and try rationalize the facts to get there.

Example: This is a philosophical position. Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth and that we should not regard scientific theories as true.[7] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and should only be regarded as useful, but not true, descriptions of the world.[8]

Realists often point to the success of recent scientific theories as evidence for the truth (or near truth) of our current theories.[9][10][11][12][13] Antirealists point to either the history of science,[14][15] epistemic morals,[8] the success of false modeling assumptions,[16] or widely termed postmodern criticisms of objectivity as evidence against scientific realisms.[17] Some antirealists attempt to explain the success of scientific theories without reference to truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Without it, you would not have had the Internet or your computer to even ask me the questions.

Likewise with philosophy. Without philosophy you would not have science and would not have had the Internet or your computer to even answer my questions. Science is rooted in philosophy, cannot function without it.

Not sure what you are asking but I think the answer is for something to be scientific is has to comply with the scientific method.

Right, but the scientific method itself is a philosophy.
For example: How is it that scientists can assert that Newton's Third Law is universally true? After all, it is not possible for them to have tested every incidence of an action, and found a reaction. They have, of course, tested many, many actions, and in each one have been able to find the corresponding reaction. But can we be sure that the next time we test the Third Law, it will be found to hold true?

One solution to this problem is to rely on the notion of induction. Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. So, after completing a series of experiments that support the Third Law, one is justified in maintaining that the Law holds in all cases.
^ This is philosophical. It is a philosophical position that asserts that enough repetitions, peer reviews, etc means we take it as fact.

[OrbitalDawn]

All I see coming from philosophers is how to punt their funny religious beliefs, how to cloak their anti-scientific views and how to justify racism and/or greed.

I wouldn't call Apache a philosopher...

Science cannot tell us what is moral or ethical, it can speculate on the evolution of morality but not what makes something moral.

Depends what you think morality is. If you're of the view that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, then science definitely has a role to play. It's possible to empirically determine whether certain things (actions, choices etc.) contribute to wellbeing or suffering, or whether they detract from them. So in that sense, science can tell us whether something is moral or immoral.

[joelus]

I wouldn't call Apache a philosopher...



Depends what you think morality is. If you're of the view that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, then science definitely has a role to play. It's possible to empirically determine whether certain things (actions, choices etc.) contribute to wellbeing or suffering, or whether they detract from them. So in that sense, science can tell us whether something is moral or immoral.

You are talking about a branch of philosophy called Meta-Ethics: the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
(as opposed to Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action and Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations)

Your statement: "Depends what you think morality is" is a philosophical question and people have been debating it for a long time. For example, even with your definition that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, is the wellbeing and suffering of an individual more important than the community? Is it moral to experiment on animals which would increase suffering of thousands of rats, but may decrease the suffering of one individual?

[OrbitalDawn]

You are talking about a branch of philosophy called Meta-Ethics: the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
(as opposed to Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action and Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations)

Your statement: "Depends what you think morality is" is a philosophical question and people have been debating it for a long time. For example, even with your definition that morality is at its base something to do with improving wellbeing and reducing suffering, is the wellbeing and suffering of an individual more important than the community? Is it moral to experiment on animals which would increase suffering of thousands of rats, but may decrease the suffering of one individual?

Yep, and given the apparent lack of any objective moral standard, this is how morality and ethics are determined. It's an ongoing conversation and debate, with potential conundrums along the way. My point is, empirical science also has a role to play in this. We can use empirically gathered data to inform our discussion and philosophical inquiries into what constitutes morality and what it means to live a "good life".

[Elimentals]

In Short:

Science: So you can learn how to clone a T-Rex.
Philosophy: So you can learn that its a bad idea.

[Arthur]

It's a serious philosophical error to see science and philosophy as somehow opposed or incompatible.

[ghoti]

I think the point being made is not that its opposed... its just no longer really relevant (except to a couple of philosophers).

[joelus]

I think the point being made is not that its opposed... its just no longer really relevant (except to a couple of philosophers).

I think it is very relevant. People philosophise all the time without realising they are doing so, usually badly and make life changing decisions based on their philosophy. Apartheid was a philosophy, democracy is a philosophy, capitalism is a philosophy, environmentalism is a philosophy, etc. Learning to debate, recognise logical fallacy's, analytic thinking, deduction, induction, etc, all useful tools and the world would be a much better place if more people were taught to make use of these philosophical tools. Not only is it relevant but needed now more than ever.

I think only in a very narrow specific field - the study of the natural world - has philosophy become less relevant.