Antiplastic

I'm finding it next to impossible to resolve what appears to be the prima facie contradiction between your insistence in the first sentence that science is not subject to the approval of philosophy, and your subsequent claim that science has to operate according to the dictates of philosophy "if it is to be deemed meaningful", on pain of "intervention" by philosophy. Can you understand why this might be confusing to your readers?

Iggy

What you find problematic bothers me very little. These disciplines cannot be bounded by intellectual white picket fences but exist symbiotically and when there is a "leading end", it is always in the area of philosophy since the only investment here is in the thinking about things. Science is about rigid methodology for investigating the natural world and comes with higher over heads. Further, even though it is is guided by human curiosity, it is purely telological and it is here where it's reason for acting is mediated by philosophy. One seldom does a thing for the mere doing of it except in instances of boredom or mental damage. We do it because we create means to end schema obout benefits to us, be it a sense of satisfaction in the aesthetics of the task or completing of the task or the benefits to to society in general. We are not ants.

Antiplastic

I'm sorry, did you not understand my question? Nothing in the above verbal briar patch seems to have anything to do with what I asked. Is science subject to the approval of philosophy or isn't it?

kennethamy

It doesn't bother you that you contradict yourself? What, then, bothers you?

Science is purely technological? Does this include theoretical science?

Iggy

It does not bother me that you presumes there are boxes into which these disciplines can be contained. The theoretical physicist lives in the domains of philosophy since questions such as the conservation of information by black holes, for example, are not only speculative but purely thought problems. I am saying science an philosophy informs each other in heuristic and catalytic ways. I also noted that if there is ever a leading role it is the domain of philosophy an provided you with the reason I hold such opinions. It is always the case that an ethic ie philosophy that guides science. If you find these opinions contradictory then that is your problem not mine.

To your last question... most certainly.

Iggy

The question is absurd. Approval implies authoritative control of some governing body. To the contrary, it is simply a matter of nomenclature for different aspects of reasoning. If the demarcation between where one begins and the other ends is a picked fence for you, it is not for me or most reasonable people. Saying science is paradigmatic and is informed by philosophic speculation that goes beyond that paradigm merely acknowledges the methodology of their inquiry differs. Science is bounded by a branch of philosophy, empiricism. I do not see many scientists taking leaps into the metaphysical speculations as the forge the basis of any scientific thought.

Antiplastic

Sorry, I had word salad with lunch, thanks.

xunzian

Philosophy is covering an increasingly shrinking area. Many of the traditional questions in philosophy either have been or are being answered by science, which forces philosophers into a variety of different corners. Like religion, you have a reaction to science's dominance and a variety of post-modern non-truths. In another corner, you have morality and ethics -- this is an area science won't ever be able to touch unless we create some sort of "moral math" a la "We", which is probably best left undone. The other is in the vein of Heidegger, where the realm of "mere" facts are dismissed in favor of the realm of the timeless ideal, which is, btw, absolutely useless.

Iggy

Would you have a "reasonable dressing", you would have found it quite palatable!

dug_down_deep

I think that we are still thinking about things and what we can say about them, just like we were 2500 years ago. Nothing has changed much, except that we have gained some knowledge.

Philosophy and science are not anatagonists or even opposites. Science includes rational analysis, and philosophy generally examines reality.