philosophy c.1300, from O.Fr. filosofie (12c.), from L. philosophia, from Gk. philosophia "love of knowledge, wisdom," from philo- "loving" (see philo-) + sophia "knowledge, wisdom," from sophis "wise, learned;" of unknown origin. Whats your point?
Albert Einstein would cry if he saw this. You of all people should know what ultimately motivated him. To know how God's mind worked. When there's just cold hard science its just that, cold and hard an autopsy slab. Philosophy puts a live living person on that slab and in turn turns it into a bed. Science without philosophy is like a person without a soul. A walking talking existing flesh bag
science isn't necessarily truth. truth is something humanity made up. science is just the urge to fulfill human curiosity in my opinion.
Uh when Albert Einstein used the word god he was speaking strictly metaphorically, so basically what he wanted to know was how the universe works which is exactly what I've seen saying this entire time. As for all the soul nonsense... well I guess I don't really need to reword that, it's nonsense just because we prefer something tangible as a life goal doesn't make us soulless, it does make you pretentious and incredibly ignorant.
Jesus tittyfucking christ. Two people, one subscribes to science, the other to philosophy. Each person thinks the other's method is a failed version of another. Neither person undesrands either method. What a clusterfuck.
Explain my said pretentiousness. You assume to know what definition of God I was speaking of yes? What did the creator of the universe have in mind when it was created this was Eistein's ultimate goal yet you presume to tell me what definition of God I was using. Pot looking into the mirror and calling its reflection black I tell ya. Lets not stray though according to your subjective philosophy I come across as pretentious for whatever reason which is confined in your subjective thought and philosophy. It all makes sense now. This is good we're making some progress EDIT: Lol whats this we? You have a lab or something? What researches are you and your team working on and what have you discovered so far? Any major breakthroughs in said scientific research? lol yes it all makes sense now
I think we seem to be getting a little mixed up here. I believe I know which definition of God you were speaking of yes,because you spoke of Einstein's goal, who did speak about God, however he only ever meant it metaphorically, he never believed in a super natural god, when he said that he "wanted to understand the mind of God" he simply meant he wanted to understand how the universe works. You came off as pretentious and arrogant because you believe that without your philosophy science is hollow, not only is that an insult to science which has accomplished the world for us, whereas philosophy has gotten us nowhere. And this is me being considerate because it would only be too easy to remind you that religion is a type of philosophy which certainly opens an entirely new can of worms. And when I said "we" I meant we scientist-types, no I'm simply a humble Physic major in university who hasn't accomplished anything I would consider great but I was referring more to the similarity in which we think and not to the work we've accomplished.
So in your assumptions you thought that I was referring to a super natural God. Scientific Regardless is it not though? The philosophy is not mine my understanding is. Think very carefully before you reply. In your view what gives science relevance? Meaning? How do these equations form in your head? Not in a dull manner I hope. Think carefully. What gives that idea significance? What exactly motivates you like the sound of an ice cream truck to a child with a sweet tooth to start chasing the truck? Is it not the taste? How do you define such taste? What does this taste mean to you? Is it tasteless like water? Stale like old bread? Delicious like warm roast? What exactly makes you get out of your bed and say I want to do some science today? Like I said think carefully
I assumed you meant a supernatural god because you quoted someone who always explained that he didn't believe in a supernatural god. If it's not a supernatural god and it's not science is there some third type of god you believe in but haven't messaged. It seems that half of what you say seems to be drawn from misunderstanding hence me mentioning it earlier and I'm still somewhat lost. Except taste would be affected by the brain, just like the urge to get out of bed in the morning, you're not arguing philosophy anymore, you're arguing psychology. What gives science relevance, how do equations form in my mind, what makes these ideas significant. If you were expecting me to answer philosophy then you're greatly mistaken because I don't believe philosophy has anything to do with any of that.
Firtst, Albert Einstein did not believe in God Second, my point is science means knowledge. If philosophy means the "love of knowledge, wisdom" then really its the love of science. and if science is empty then philosphy is the love of emptiness. there is no philosophy without science.
I wasn't being stubborn I was simply sticking to my beliefs about science and you attempted to draw philosophy where was there rightfully is none. There are very good explanations where you thought there was only philosophy so for you to be giving up without asking for them is a negative reflection on you not sciene. So you can insult me all you like, just keep your nonsense (that's all it is) in the philosophy forum please. Edit: Gonajninitjsu deleted his post so I may have to delete this one when I make my reply if one is needed. Edit 2: Also you seem to be getting the impression that science is without philosophy that it must be cold. That's a horrible interpretation as scientists generally love their work and find it beautiful, my favourite thing to do when I get high is read Physics equations and papers and just marvel at the nature of the universe.
Thank you. And I know what I know because I know nothing. Somehow this concept eludes people when theories change everyday. If you call nothing something what have you really done other than give nothing significance? Philosophy is simply a way of approaching things in a flexible manner as one philosophy can be applied to everything it examines I'm gonna go take a nap
And science is the eternal hunt for knowledge so why should we be happy with nothing and be careful thinking of which definition of the word "nothing" I use. Again.. this doesn't belong here, after your nap please stick to the philosophy section, we generally like facts and interesting theories here.
bold part is also why it's it's about as useful as a wet noodle in the realm of science. Because there is nothing that prevents a completely contrary view to the same thing. as in there are no bounds to anything which allows for everything which means you can always disprove anything you ever prove. What use is that other than mental masturbation? But then again the goals of the two are different. Science intends on finding the different, provable methods to predict events. I'm not a philosophy major so please tell me what the goal of it is? My 3 classes in it hardly make me an expert and all 3 seemed to be a utter waste of time as we achieved no discernible goal on any subject. And no, "approaching things in a flexible manner as one philosophy can be applied to everything it examines" is not a goal, that is just part of a process. At best I would guess that it's goal is to state the different viewpoints of different opinions but that's not a useful thing, you can do that forever without achieving anything except disproving yourself a thousand different ways. The point being show some USES of philosophy and you'll be more likely to get people on board with you. We can point to things in science and directly attribute them to something useful in our world, please do the same for yours.
I don't mean to sound like a dick, but I haven't seen a single statement from any of you that correctly identifies the basis of science or philosophy. Niether has anything to do with opinions. Do you think opinions are involved in math? No? Neither are they involved in philosphy, for exactly the same reasons. The basis of Philosophy is rationality, and critical thinking, not simply giving an opinion. Seriously, go read a book. It's impossible to have a useful debate about such issues without knowing the material you're debating. It's like arguing about whether or not Mars is pleasant in the spring.
While I can't say the same thing for philosophy if you haven't seen the definition of science pop up a few times then you must've missed more than a couple posts. Also this conversation is a little more complicated than simply comparing the definition of science to the definition of philosophy.
I admit to skimming some posts and outright skipping others, but I saw both philosophy and science defined incorrectly a number of times. The conversation is more complicated than that, and that's the problem. Without the correct knowledge about what either field of study even is, there's no way to arrive at any kind of meaningful conclusion. There's no basis for argument. Also, at the guy above me, that is actually incorrect. All claims require the same amount of evidence. It has a nice ring to it, but it's false.
I think you're taking things slightly too literal, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in the sense that the implications for the evidence make it extraordinary, but that argument really has nothing to do with the thread. To summarize the thread, some people came in here complaining that science is empty and leads up further from the truth, after ignoring all the obvious evidence that was presented they changed their argument slightly to say that philosophy is simply important than science but of course that is also nonsense and what I have been arguing against for the past few pages. I'm actually surprised a mod hasn't stepped in because the philosophical nonsense in this thread have no place in the science forum.