|
Post by mariana castro on Jun 12, 2015 22:42:35 GMT
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy." Be sure to support your answers with references to the required readings and films.
Philosophy done well is science means that when a philosopher is doing his job right, his ideas will lead to scientific research that turn the initial philosophical question into a scientific endeavor. All philosophical questions are based on the seeking of the nature of knowledge and reality, therefore good questioning of the cosmos by a good thinker will spark interest in the scientific community to test certain theories or hypothesis'. The fact that philosophical questions are being put to scientific testing for their falsifiability, makes it a science. All great scientists are also great thinkers who at some point philosophized about the world through their observations then used experiments and the scientific method to make great discoveries. Other philosophies, such as those of the paranormal, or existence of God, or the soul, cannot be tested or falsified. Not just that but those philosophies often lack a real understanding of the cosmos. They often ignore rules of physics, biology, chemistry and mathematics; therefore, initial observations are weak and produce weak philosophical ideas. That is why philosophy done poorly remains philosophy. They can not transcend into science because they are either poor theories to begin with or can't be tested.
|
|
|
Post by Hector Aguinaga on Jun 13, 2015 5:13:58 GMT
2. What is meant by the phrase, "philosophy done well is science; philosophy done poorly remains philosophy". Hello Mariana, I agree with your points that scientist are also great thinkers who at some point philosophized about the world through their observations, experiments, theories, and hypothesis, and they life to reduce to tangible proven facts. However, I think that by further analyzing their reductionist theorems they form a close mind way of thinking in the sense that they also based many of their theories in faith in the contextual sense of the word, as for example the argument between Bohr vs. Einstein. When scientist attempt to prove a theory to reduce it to a materialistic proof, I think that there is a point before they get to that reductionism that they have subconsciously faith that they will prove their theory, but they first go through that subconscious and eventually conscious sense of faith, as then finding themselves in a junction point with religious belief of faith, as both expect in a sense an eventual reality, answering the metaphorical answer of Philosophy, as it is the total study of the sciences.
|
|