what if we where all philosphers?

Question

this isnt a question with any right answer just views,

if we never developed to concept of basing physical laws on observation and continued as philosiphers, how far would u think we would have come to this date

Answer 1

I see many of the standard statements were given, so I'll just offer you this...

Why did Newton come up with Newtonian Mechanics? Why did Einstein come up with relativity?

It was because they were philosophers. That they believed that the world around them ought to be easier to describe than what the previous theories required; that being too many ad hoc additions / assumptions.

I noticed someone mentioned something about heliocentric theory. Did you know that it was also opposed to by SCIENTISTS at the time?

This wasn't just out of outright fear of the church, but because that Ptolemy's Model had been tweaked so much that it yielded BETTER experimental results than the sun centered model.

But it was people like Galileo and Newton who changed all that. Newton referred to what he did as EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY. He didn't believe as others did at the time, but thought on his own to see past the barriers that impeded them. But, importantly, he was willing to put his money where his mouth is via experiment.

So don't knock the philosophers. THEY are the ones responsible for all that we can say that we understand about our universe, the physical laws as we understand them. NOT the run of the mill scientists that stagger in their foot-steps.

Answer 2

One of the Greek philosophers, Aristarchus first displaced the earth at the centre of the universe, and creating the notion of a heliocentric (i.e. sun centred) system. Unfortunately people decided to plump for Aristotle's geocentric model. How far we'd be ahead if that had been adopted is staggering as the church adopted Aristotle's model and decided it was heresey to indicate otherwise. Science was set back a long time by the church and it's worth noting that it was not until 1992 that the Catholic Church conceded that Galileo's theories on the rotation of the earth and other bodies around the sun was right.

So I'd say that various schools of philosophy would have led us down various routes- some based their theories on the assumption that human perception's were flawed and thus those formed in the mind were most valid (mind over matter) whilst others believed that it was through observation that would lead us to postulations and hypotheses on the how the world (possibly) works. I'd also say that any time a scientist or indeed anyone asks 'why' they are engaging in philosophy.

Answer 3

Then we'd all sit around over thinking things desperately searching for what to argue about next.

Having an opinion on how this world works is not something "philosophers" have a monopoly on. Everyone does it whether they realize it or not. Most of these me have fascinating ideas on things but remember, they are just as in the dark as you are...so make you OWN opinion.

I think we'd be doing just fine personally.

Answer 4

I think that we ARE all philosophers. Some of us are just better at it than others, or at least some of us think that they are better than others.

Answer 5

Not very far, good thing we use reason instead.

Answer 6

i`d laugh