How should philosophy relate to all (current) scientific research? — spirit-salamander

One role I can think that is fundamentally philosophical rather than scientific is addressing issues related to the scientific method rather than results or theories. Examples:

• Appropriate levels of significance
• Replication of results
• Reporting of results, e.g. reporting of negative findings
• Review of methods and results
• Requirements for data validation and analysis, e.g. statistical methods

Also - ethical issues. Examples:

• Consent
• Possible harm to study participants
• Fraud
• Conflicts of interest

After all, he only wanted the sciences to be treated democratically, completely without authorities, so that, for example, both evolution and intelligent design should be taught in school. — spirit-salamander

Intelligent design is a science?

To answer the question posed in the title of the thread . . . with utmost caution. If a philosopher wishes to engage in scientific speculation (philosophizing) they should learn the science. (Beware of quantum mysticism) :chin:

There is some validity to being cautious about judging other cultures medicines (acupuncture has been mentioned). If you prove in a double blind study that a certain medicine is effectual over placebo in the setting of a study, it's not entirely clear how this applies to people acting in everyday life and in other cultures. There is something to be said for those who say science can't figure out everything.

So something like a referee function (role) for the scientific community. That would be reasonable.

Intelligent design is a science? — jgill

The representatives of ID see themselves as scientific. There is an interview between ID proponent Wendy Wright and Richard Dawkins, in which Dawkins lists the scientific reasons for evolution. Wendy Wright replied that these are the reasons for ID.

If a philosopher wishes to engage in scientific speculation (philosophizing) they should learn the science. — jgill

My point was that the philosopher does not simply face the one unmistakable science, but he only sees many sciences that at least claim to be scientific and fight each other. For example, there is an alternative to cosmology or astrophysics. That would be the plasma cosmology or the theory of the electric universe. The representatives of it consider the mainstream as nonsensical. To be mainstream should not be a reason or value also for the philosopher either.

Exactly, Paul Feyerabend even said that the older a tradition (and still in use) is like acupuncture the more truth value it should be given over anything new.

Is the philosopher allowed to interfere in these debates? — spirit-salamander

You know that philosophy of science is a thing, right?

Philosophers of science may mainly discuss merely among themselves. The normal scientist does not know so much what is going on, except what is said in his textbook, such as a few remarks on Popper.

My point was generally about the philosopher as such.

I don't know how philosophers of science relate to the fringe sciences. Or what they say about evolutionary psychology or climate research. Or what they say at all about current purely scientific debates. Are they biased there? It would not only be unphilosophical but also unscientific to follow the mainstream simply because it is mainstream. After all, today's mainstream can be tomorrow's nonsense.

It would not only be unphilosophical but also unscientific to follow the mainstream simply because it is mainstream. After all, today's mainstream can be tomorrow's nonsense. — spirit-salamander

What other approach would you advise? Given that evidence, rational conclusion, intuition...all severely underdetermine theory, we're left with either consensus or divergence.

What other approach would you advise? — Isaac

I think that if one is in the role of a philosopher, one should refrain from judgment, at least as far as the theoretical of science is concerned. If you leave this role and become a private person, then you are allowed to have your personal opinion about everything and it would not be wrong for you to go along with the scientific zeitgeist from a social point of view because of the resulting social acceptance.

I am using philosophy to become a better computer programmer. By not trying to find solutions but to engage in different forms of expressions that can be adapted to my programming language.

To find the most efficient way to bridge solution and expression. In the most comprehensive and universally acceptable way possible.

To find solutions without expression is useless information and expression without solutions to convey is just babbling gibberish.

That is my intentions to study philosophy.

So something like a referee function (role) for the scientific community. That would be reasonable. — spirit-salamander

Guys doing experiments, calculating, theorizing, investigating following the scientific method - that's science. The scientific method itself - that's metaphysics, i.e. philosophy.

I am using philosophy to become a better computer programmer. By not trying to find solutions but to engage in different forms of expressions that can be adapted to my programming language. — SteveMinjares

I don't see how philosophy can help you with that. Programming language theory and computer science is more relevant no?

The thing in itself won't help you design a parser.

don't see how philosophy can help you with that. Programming language theory and computer science is more relevant no? — emancipate

Well is complicated to explain in under 250 words and to type on my cell phone. That is a challenge by it self.

So hopefully I can explain myself in the best way possible without sounding stupid.

You need to have the very basic concept of logic. Recognize logic in its most primitive state.

Than have the most basic concept of expressing idea. Recognize expression in its most primitive state.

Hopefully, I am explaining myself correctly but is like trying to learn the anatomy of analytical thinking and anatomy of communication.

How creativity made an idea and from that idea a proper form of expression is required to make it part of the external world.

How to translate these concept into a source code to mimic these attributes.

In other words I’m a modern day Dr. Frankenstein

Using Philosophers or bits and pieces of them to manifest my creation. Identify certain attributes of philosophy and see if it can be mimicked in a artificial way.

Dissecting the human consciousness and taking what I need to manifest an artificial thought in a system. Philosophy is my cemetery and how Dr. Frankistein harvest body parts which in my case will be attributes of the mind.

Like I said is a work in progress and my investigation is not complete so I can’t say my pursuit is worth wild or is a bunch of gibberish. I’ll find out after I am done with this informal investigation.

Here is an example of what I am trying to explain:.

2 + 2 = 4

Two apple plus Two orange still equals four OR two?

**Insufficient information provided**

Count apples

2

Count Oranges

2

How many groups?

2

How many group of apples?

1

Which is the correct answer?

**Insufficient information provided**

You see by a single question it produces multiple answers depending on the information is presented, how you ask the question and how is perceived.

Concept of information manipulation and how information is processed. Also, concept of type of expression to communicate the idea across. I am hesitant to bring up Boolean Law as a comparison but I am sure my explanation sounds similar to those context. Other concept like Super position state define by quantum computing. How to reference these concept to understand consciousness.

I believe technology is just mimicking nature and to understand neuro-Science, Psychology, Philosophy, anatomy, Metaphysics and religion. Is all part of the journey to create an AI to the likeness of the human consciousness. Not just understand code and it’s mechanics.

I better stop because just this single component
alone can be exhausting to explain. But like I said philosophy to me is compatible to programming languages like C, C++, python etc... oh and pseudo code.

Philosophy to me is more like information manipulation than truth and how to produce desired results.

Two apple plus Two orange still equals four OR two? — SteveMinjares

In programming this is akin to operating on 2 different types, which would either throw an error or do some kind of operator overloading (depending on the particular programming language being used).

Your description of philosophy seems to have reduced it to study of logical relations. Mathematical logic is, as I'm sure you already know, a part of CS and boolean logic is what the whole science is built on. Good luck in your experiments though.

Your description of philosophy seems to have reduced it to study of logical relations. — emancipate

Yes, you’re absolutely correct!

Good luck in your experiments though. — emancipate

Thank you,

Science informs (constrains-enables) philosophy, etc.

Philosophy interprets (problematizes) science, etc.

At best, through reflective equilibrium, science & philosophy clarify-edify the understanding of reality of those who are engaged with each discipline separately and as complementaries to one another.