Re: Science Is A Slave to Philosophy - Elitism in the Sciences

[MereChristianLogic]

I would argue that the confusion between philosophy and other disciplines such as science, language, or art is their order. Philosophy is a second order discipline, one with the capability of self awareness. Science is a first order discipline and requires a philosophy. I would also believe that you already know this. I also would argue that people tend to stretch both beyond their explanatory power.

[marcdaddy33]

I miss Veritas48's videos.

It is obvious that science is a slave to philosophy. laws of logic and mathematics are the foundations of science.

[batfly]

Progressive elitists are a pervasive malignant cancer to science.

[heartrocketblast]

I'm not about to watch this whole video, but Veritas never said that all scientists think science has no grounds in philosophy. He was just responding to the ones who do. Obviously if he's upset he's probably actually had people saying that to him.

[Newton1692]

Perhaps if you watched more carefully the portion of video you did watch, you would have seen that, at the out set, I agreed with veritas. My statements about the scientists who are aware of the philosophical foundations of their profession, concerned the effectiveness of philosophical thinking in scientific understanding.

[alexmigda]

science doesn't come from philosophy, just like philosophy doesn't come from science. they are complimentary.

[Newton1692]

That science comes from philosophy is a historical fact. That they are distinct is in debate.

[alexmigda]

i disagree, i think people have been making scientific observations just as long as they have been making philisophical observations

[Newton1692]

I appreciate your comment.

[pitchpatchmommy]

Of making many books there is no end and much study is a weariness to the flesh. Let us here the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man. -Solomon

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: -Paul to Timothy

[Newton1692]

I have the deepest reverence for those particular scriptures. Solomon and Paul are the finest authors in scripture. They are not critics of diligent, purposeful research. Further it often requires much study to avoid profane and vain babbling, and opposition of science falsely so called.

[marcdaddy33]

@pitchpatchmommy

excellent scriptures. I always need to keep them in mind with respect to youtube debates on science, religion, etc

[mjoyner]

Damn, I might have to go the university library for the Reichenbach book. For me, the libraries is the only real grunt of community colleges. Anyways, that afro is awesome. I would grow one, too, but I'm just too damn impatient.

[idiothek]

damn it, i'm super late to the party. either way, great vid

[pwargan]

I believe that, at the most fundamental level, the difference between the scientist and the philosopher, in the broad sense of each word, is negligible. Both science and philosophy have branched out so much that it is difficult to provide a definitive definition of each field. There are theoretical sciences that are almost completely based on philosophical thought, and there are philosophical studies based on observation.

[pwargan]

In my view, arguing which field is more credible is simply a continuation of the childhood "my toys are better than your toys" conflict. Science and philosophy are interdependent, and one does not have authority over the other. What is paper without a writer? And what is a writer without paper? Nothing. What do you think about this? I am increasingly fascinated by my own ignorance and would really appreciate feedback from someone of your intellect.

[Newton1692]

You're too kind. I don't see any distinction between philosophy and science; so, I certainly agree with you on this point. As you may know, it was not too long ago when physial science was called natural philosophy. My comparison was between Religion and Science, not philosophy and Science.

I, in turn,appreciate and am greatful that someone of your intellect would take the time to watch my video and comment so thoughtfully.

Peace.

[pwargan]

Thanks for posting. I will definitely keep watching. Perhaps I'll make some videos of my own someday.

That comment wasn't a direct reply to the video, just a continuation of the argument I suppose. Another interesting thing to look at would be the "first" philosopher, Thales of Miletus, who arguably invented modern science and philosophy simultaneously, so the link already existed from the very beginning.

[pwargan]

There is so much potential for great discussion here, but unfortunately the 500 character limit doesn't allow for it.

[Justaname2222]

your amazing, i wish i could ever have as much knowledge as you Keep the good work up and Make knew videos

[FatGermanBastard]

I think Veritas was mainly inspired to make this video due to my discussion with GnosticAtheist who said that he was a scientist and he did not believe in anything that is grounded in philosophy - he tried to ground morality in science but as I said ethics are a branch of philosophy. I said that science was grounded in epistemology and Veritas did agree. Later on he made that video.

[Newton1692]

Science is also a branch of philosophy. Just because it's philosophy doesn't protect it from scientific explaination. Even I treat non-scientific subjects with greater skepticism: it's an old habit. I don't think GnosticAtheist means what he said.

[FatGermanBastard]

The reason why he said that was because he wanted to name a source for objective morality. I.e. he said science tells us that cooperation leads to better results. That is true but I am saying this is social behaviour and not morality. My definition of morality is social behaviour + the idea that some interests are more justified than others...not just more efficient etc. (see my videos on that if you like)

[Veritas48]

So I agree with everything you are saying. As far as religion and science, I don't see them as necessarily dichotomous so it doesn't seem to me that science has some grasp over religion. Traditionally religion's purpose was to establish virtue in a society...at least with regard to Western Christian theism...it is not an inherent opponent of science by necessity.

[Newton1692]

Christianity and many other religions make claims about how the world or the universe began and how life was made. Religion in antiquity established value systems, but was also a method of explaining the way the world was. This latter function is becoming entirely vestigial.

[MattRivers85]

I think you need to spend some time with a Rabbi or read some of the old Jewish Scholars and see what they have to say about such statements. I think you might find it a learning experience. They see or saw it as a way to view how God revealed him self to us not really so concerned with the dicohtomy(sp) of how the earth was created.

[MattRivers22]

The Bible is not a science book or really a history book its a testimony(sp) of God's personal involment with the Hebrew people and the world. Quite scruttinizing it with something man made as science and history it beyond that!

[Newton1692]

If it is beyond science and history, why couldn't it endure their scrutiny? If anything, scientific and historical scrutiny would provide evidence of its truth.

You sound afraid.

[Veritas48]

Great video. I am not trying to indict any legitimate scientist. There are MANY, like the ones you named who not only are knowledgeable in the areas of philosophy but also respect the field. I, however, was referring to a lot of scientists here on youtube primarily.

[Newton1692]

Whoever they are, I hope your video sets them straight. I think that the scientists you refer to, primarily object to excessive

metaphysical speculation. The success of science has definitely changed the value systems (religion's turf). Raw metaphysics along with similar practices have lost their value: who reads Hegel, for instance ?

[MattRivers85]

How could a man that God reaveled such a standard as creation possibly grasp what we can't even grasp still today. He could not so He did the best he could. He was not concerned on the preciseness of the methods of creation just God's hands being in it. Not a science issue at all. (continued from above)

[Newton1692]

"He did the best he could...": at best, corrupts the integrity of scripture; at worst, is Ad Hoc.Sorry, I was raised protestant: literal reading only.:(

[MattRivers22]

Uh ok not all protestants are literal so you can't come in to this argument profiling, because I'm protestant to and I take the Bible with one thing in mind. The new testament is a glimpse at what will happen when we love and the old a glimpse what will happen when you don't

[Newton1692]

First, this is sliding outside the scope of the video.

Second:It is difficult ,if not impossible, to speak about a general religious position without making a straw man. The upshot of my point was that this kind of naive Hermeneutics is Ad Hoc and corrupts the integrity of scripture.