Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on December 26, 2006

Sign up for OKPAY and start accepting payments instantly.

Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:

Humans face many questions and Science and Philosophy are considered to be important sources for finding the answers to those questions. Problems or questions etc. are basically of two types i.e. objective and subjective. Science has found solutions to only a few of objective type problems. Rest of objective type questions as well as the whole sphere of subjective type issues still fall under the purview of Philosophy.

As far as ‘objective’ issues are concerned, their progress is visible to even uneducated or less educated people. Progress in subjectivity however is concerned with the intellectual insights of some individuals – I mean Philosophers or other Spiritualists. Subjectivity is not concerned with finding the definite answers to the issues/ problems but it is concerned with determining the nature, extent and types of those problems. So progress can exist, in subjective issues also. But this type of progress has to be invisible to Non-Philosophical/ Non-Spiritual type people.

And a very important function of Philosophy is to elaborate, explain and account for the general but vogue feelings of a common person. The common persons may not be conscious of those feelings before having read the Philosophy. But while reading the Philosophy, the reader must feel as if it were the same things that already should have been known to him.

Function of Philosophy is to draw theoretical pictures of whatever we observe or feel. Philosophy should be concerned as much with generating questions as to the finding of answers. As a matter of fact, Philosophical assertions cannot be regarded as objective truths. Philosophy is subjective by nature. To be subjective does not mean to be inferior. Fact is that to be ‘subjective’ means to be ‘superior’ … because only humans are subjective whereas computer can be regarded even as an objective thinker.

‘Science’ is basically whatever can be proved objectively. And whatever can be proved objectively, initially it was already known to humans in subjective style. General theory of Relativity is Science because it can be supported by objective evidence. But point is that Einstien had conceived this theory perheps in 1916 whereas its experimental proof was found in 1919. It means that before when this theory bacame ‘science’ or that before when it could be proved objectively, it was already in the notice of humanity in subjective style.

In this way, science is only that portion of humanity’s subjective knowledge that could be proved objectively. And objectivity and truth are not Synonymous at all. Subjective ideas can be true whether or not they are supported by the objective evidence. During the period 1916-19, General Theory of Relativity had been remained such a subjective theory which was true in fact, despite the fact that no experimental proof had been found in that period.

Philosophy is much broader than science. Science is what questions have been objectively answered. Philosophy is what could be the more and more questions and what could be all the possible answers to those more and more questions. Philosophy takes precedence over science because it is Philosophy which has to raise questions and then to propose answers. Science takes only those answers, out of all the ‘proposed answers’, which can be experimentally proved by using the available experimental techniques.

Still another important difference between Science and Philosophy is the determination of quantitative relationships beween variables. Philosophy is NOT concerned with this activity whereas, in my assessment, Science overemphasizes the role and importance of this activity. In this way, Philosophy has to find the possible variables and to propose any possible relationships between those variables. Science then has to work out the exact quantitative relationship between those variables. Thus, in my assessment, the part of Newton’s second law which asserts the existence of positive relationship between force and acceleration, is Philosophical in nature. On the other hand, the formulation of exact quantitative relationship in the form of formula i.e. “F = ma”, is Scientific in nature.

And it is often said that Philosopher creates knowledge by mere ‘thinking’ whereas Scientist creates knowledge by ‘observing’. My point of view is that ultimate input for any kind of ‘thinking’ has to be found in ‘observations’. The role of philosopher is to systemetically shape the already existing observations into the form of Philosophical assertions regarding the existence of various inter-related variables. Scientist actually would purposefully ‘observe’ those already identified variables with the view to just test the already proposed kind of relationships between them. Galileo’s experiments about speed of falling objects having different weights as well as about the projectile motion were actually his purposeful attempts to just check the validities of the already established Greek Philosophical views regarding these matters.

Similarly, Michealsons & Morley’s experiment which led them to find the notion of ‘relative constancy of the speed of light’, was also basically their purposeful attempt to just check the validity of already existing philosophical type idea about the existence of ‘eather’. I am having the opinion that creation of Knowledge is not the role of Scientist. To create new knowledge is actually the role of Philosopher. The role of Scientist is just to extract the objective truths out of already existing ideas. Through experimentation (i.e. through purposeful observations), the scientist would bring refinements in many already existing vouge philosophical ideas by establishing the exact quantitative relationships between already existing variables.

There is another positive role of Scientist. He has to practically implement his so refined theories by inventing and applying new technologies also.


14 Responses to “Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science:”

  1. harrison gospel said

    i want you to be sending me informations on medicial sciences(anatomy,physiology,biology and chemistry).

  2. cristine a.gomez said

    philosophy is queen of science?

  3. mich said

    tnx for this article very helpful…

  4. Bob Ehle said

    Science differs from philosophy in that once the human mind has done its best to reason out a solution to a problem, science also requires that the solution be put to laboratory tests, attempting to remove the human factor and to reach an objective demonstration of truth. For the many subjects and topics for which no demonstration of truth can be found, philosophy provides the best available answer.

  5. murali said

    excellent post.very simple and very helpfull.

  6. martin said

    every scientist is a philosopher because you cannot come up with good scientific result without thinking and reflecting. philosophy is a reflective discipline and every discipline involves thinking including science.

    • Thank you Martin for your comemnt on the relationship between philosophy and empirical science. I also want to make you understand that not every act of thinking and reflecting that could be ragarded as philosophy, because when we talk of philosophy in this sense, we are referring to it as a serious and critical academic discipline which has its own methods. If any act or capability of thinking and refletin is philosophy, then, every human being would authentically be a philosopher, but this is not the case. Secondly, I seem not to really understand what you mean by that interplay of ideas. Do you mean that as every scientist is a philosopher, according to your words, so also every philosopher is a scientist? Do you mean that the “A” proposition “All S is P” as seen in you statement is by conversion valid? Please, make yourself clear. Thanks.

      Mother Mary loves you!

  7. Ibukun said

    I completely agree with Francis, it doesn’t follow especially when that scientist are philosophers conversely.

  8. raji said

    tanks 4 d article

  9. ronel said

    thanks a lot

  10. ricel said

    thanks so much, u helped me a lot with my research

  11. theory…

    […]Progress in Philosophy and Difference between Philosophy & Science: « khuram[…]…

  12. Okolo Darlington said

    I like dis website,you people are doing a wonderful job keep it up.

  13. I am truly happy to read this web site posts which includes
    tons of helpful information, thanks for providing such information.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: