Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Like Philosophy

It bothers me that philosophy isn't a core subject in school. Instead 'science' has taken it's place. Except it isn't even science... it is teachers telling people scientific theories as if they are true and telling people that the scientific method is infallible. It is sickening. Science is to philosophy (or the lack thereof) as christianity is to theism (or the lack thereof). That wasn't a great analogy since science should at least have a place, but it is essentially considered divine even though it is a flawed method.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Miram · 31-35, F

I am not sure how philosophy is instructed in your country.

I do agree it is fundamental to science. Sound mathematics, the language of science cannot happen without logic. And logic arises from sound philosophy.

What flaws are you referring to and which scientific method?

MerryMilkshake · 22-25, M

@Miram I think he mean THE scientific method

Miram · 31-35, F

@MerryMilkshake There are several types. And there are two major philosophers who disagree to an extent in paradigm shifts. He certainly means something specific?

MerryMilkshake · 22-25, M

Well no I don't think he does. The topic of the post was as general as overall US education standards. So I don't think he needed to be as specific as to name disagreements within the philosophy community.

Miram · 31-35, F

@MerryMilkshake

I am not asking him to edit the post. I was asking a question to know which flaws he is referring to, to understand his last point.

Miram · 31-35, F

@MerryMilkshake Also this is in a philosophy? I shouldn't discuss?

DeepDreamer · 31-35, M

I think we are on the same page, for the most part.

The flaws show themselves worst among those who believe that the scientific method is a concrete method of discovering facts. As long as one is aware that the scientific method is based off of speculation and peer review, that peers are human, that all humans are subject to human nature, that many things that are apparently true in speculation often only appear to be true because of the nature of humans and the nature of human societies (as should become apparent within philosophy in certain concepts such as social contracts), that correlation does not imply causation, and as long as one is aware of how all of these things relate to the scientific method... as long as one is aware of all of these things then the scientific method makes a useful tool rather than inspiring the person to follow 'science' as if it were a divine cult that spoke nothing but truth.

Miram · 31-35, F

@DeepDreamer So Popper's , the scientific method starts from speculation based on an observation (usually), you have to form an initial hypothesis. then it moves to investigation and you have to find evidence to back it up via experimentation. In that case you can't just say it is just speculation and peer reviews.

If we talk about mathematics, it starts from logical axioms and yes, those are not concrete, just sets. The accuracy can be demonstrated though in concrete manifestations. Most times, not always.

Correlation does not imply causation- that's pretty much a scientific principle. I think now people are driven to not make the distinction because quantifiable research is given the same merit as the experimental.

I don't think it should be glorified, at the same time neither should philosophy. They are both limited but they are our best bets currently , for different purposes.

Science is designed to shift when a developing theory would not qualify as a paradigm. Once the successful development of a groundbreaking theory is completed, a paradigm shift suddenly surfaces because it is incommensurable and cannot be integrated with the prevailing theory & is replaced. Science then has to solve that paradox..So it is part of its nature to never form conclusive answers, it evolves and so does its accuracy. And truth like you implied, is open to change.

DeepDreamer · 31-35, M

@Miram I agree with everything you said. If there are any implications in what you said then I missed them.

I didn't mean to say that science is just speculation and peer review, what I meant to say were that those are where the 'flaws' in science are. I don't know a better way to articulate what I mean than to say that they are flaws. The implication of a flaw is normally that the 'flaw' can be improved upon, but in this case any flaws 'in the method' are human error.

I will think on this for a while and see if I can properly word the concepts that I am trying to get across, I don't think I am doing a very good job of it.

Miram · 31-35, F

@DeepDreamer You do a great job actually. Since there's no "only", my response was more of an assumption. Take it easy on you.