What is the difference between philosophy and science and between philosophic and scientific explanations? Is "philosophy of science" a science?
Philosophy deals with questions that cannot be answered by observation or experiment.
Science is the systematic method of acquiring knowledge based on observation and experiment.
From these definitions, it follows that a philosophic explanation is based on reasoning and argument from principles, whereas a scientific explanation is based on reasoning from observed facts.
finally, the philosophy of science deals with the study of the assumptions, methods and implications of science and the scientific method. As such, it is a branch of philosophy, not of science.
Science is the study of observable and/or testable phenomena. Philosophy is the study of knowledge through logical thought. The philosophy of science would be epistemology, the study of learning through logical thought. Unless you are referring to "The Scientific Method" as the "philosophy of science".
Scientific explanations are supposed to be provable in a physical manner, while philosophical explanations are provable in a logical manner.
I know this doesn't add much to the previous answer, but a couple of words are different.
According to Kant, Science is the domain of understanding, which orders and unifies the observed phenomena by rules. The phenomena are representations based on sense impressions and corresponding concepts. The things that appear as phenomena are objects of thought only, the noumena. The concepts for dealing with the noumena are ideas, which are dealt with by reason. The ideas have no corresponding sense impressions. Whereas the phenomena are unified by rules, by the understanding, the rules are unified by principles, by reason. Philosophy is more concerned with reason, as the generagtor of concepts, than with understanding.
Philosophy and science are in no way separated: Philosophy is how we turn the light of reason on reason itself. Scientific rigor is how we turn the light of science on science itself.
In philosophy, if we presume that a seemingly "valid" argument holds true in all circumstances, then we have a truism. If we find that there is a circumstance where an argument does not hold true, we have proven the argument false. Hence, we do not count the arguments pro and con: we weigh them. One such idea is democracy.
In science, if we believe something, we have an hypothesis. If we predict of our hypothesis that the outcome of an experiment will always be the same, we have a postulate. But if another researcher shows that it is not necessarily true, then we look at all the variables. Once verified, we reconsider the variables and refine the postulate. Then, once it reasonably holds true, and no evidence of any substance arises to dispute it, then we have a theory. Then, we the researchers, must do everything in our power to disprove our own work. That is called falsification. Some theories, alas, are theories in name only and are not even so well proved as a postulate: evolution, for example, has never once met the tests of scientific rigor yet it is taught as gospel in Middle School and sometimes even High School. Evolution only very rarely occurs in college as there are so many highly credible disputes. Even without thousands of credible disputes, evoloution suffers a complete lack of scientific falsification. Hardly a credible hypothesis, much less a postulate, much less a theory.
They are two dimensions of knowledge. The path of search may be different. But many a times philosophers tried to make philosophy as a rigorus science following the scientific tools. The philosophical tools are being desinged with the intention of finding answers for very subtle,abstract and unexperimentable problems. Its definitely not that philosophy begins at where science ends. On the contrary they are both sides of the same coin.Many times they go together. Sicence with out philosophy is blind. Philosophy without science is empty.
Dept. of Philosophy
The Madura College
True enough, Murali! Science, without philosophical procedure, renders no plausible finding. Philosophy, without the orderly methods of science, results in gibberish. One compliments the other and both are essential to the orderly accumulation of knowledge.
If a study will not pass the tests of reason, and experiment, where reasonable, we have accomplished nothing.
Of course, some pseudoscientific studies are funnier than others.
Rocmike3, are you saying that new species do not arise? That mutation does not exist?
There is no difference beteen science and philsophy in content and intent. If you receive a philosophy degree a philosopher, and if you receieve a science degree, you are a scientist.
Both science and philosophy offer no explanation on:1. the origin and evoluton of divisibility, 2. the origin and evoluton of comparability, 3. the origin and evoluton of connectivity, 4. the origin and evoluton of disturbability, 5. the origin and evoluton of reorderability, 6. the origin and evoluton of substitutability and 7. the origin and evoluton of satisfiability.
Philsophers say:God finally told, “none of my creations or their derivatives can get rid of divisibility, comparability, connectivity, disturbability, reorderability, substitutability and satisfiability." Men and woman born under heaven with my wisdom are to experience and reveal these indestructible properties of mine through everyone and everything. My sons who realize my indestructible wisdom through these properties prosper in my kingdom. My sons who attempt to destroy my indestructible properties destroy their prosperity and acquire insanity.
And the great scientist physically obeserve those told by the philsophers.
Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:
Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them