Why do even some philosophers, when puzzled, resort to science to justify an answer?

Question

Whoever said science was 100% logically correct all the time?


By the way, I'm not speaking from a biased perspective, I'm a science major.

Answer 1

they use the knowledge that they have avail.
do a simple philosphizing formula and wala..........

Answer 2

Science -IS- philosophy. It falls under the category of 'natural philosophy' (it is even likely that is what your degree will read when you graduate - mine did!). Like many other philosophical viewpoints, it makes certain assumptions which may or may not be true, but certainly have seemed to have been valid up until now. And since most philosophers are by definion 'philo - sophia', or seeking truth, it seems only reasonable that they would lean on whatever seems to be valid that they can lay their hands on.

Not ALL philosophers do this, of course. Some doubt even the information that their senses provide (and given what we scientifically know about the kind of sensory information we get, I'm not sure I blame them). Whether it is completely reasonable to do this, however, is probably a much more protracted discussion!

Answer 3

CIte an example, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Most philosophers have heavy empiricist leanings.
They want to solve fundamental problems about reality and are completely entitled to empirical evidence. So what if some finding isn't a necessary truth? It depends on the context, and you know this... so I'm at a loss to your reason for posting this question. There's no way a philosopher who deals with some metaphysical issue is going to ignore current physics. The background assumptions have changed -- you expect philosophers to do what, look at Platonic Forms? or we should use Ptolemeic astronomy? This is really ridiculous.

I'm nauseous.

Answer 4

It has nothing to do with being "100% logically correct all the time." Alot of Science seems illogical. Look at the Black Hole.
Some things are hard for the human mind to grasp, no matter how "scientific" they are. I love Science by the way...

Answer 5

Science is just one of tools available to a philosopher.
For example if the subject of inquiry is "Is there free will?" Science might not be the best tool.
However if the subject of inquiry is "How many teeth does a horse have" -- it is the best to resort to science -- and just get several horses and count!
By the way both questions are surely philosophical, in fact they are metaphysical they both inquire into the a way the universe is.

Answer 6

They must be philosophers in the positivist and empiricist currents. IThis system of knowledge is just another way of explaining reality, although not its totality, for science is unable to go beyond the empirically verifiable and/or falseable, therefore: the aera of influence of '"science" , in its epistemological aspect, must by necessity remain confined to that which only the senses, aided by reason, and with the tool of induction can verify or falsify. ie: the field of phenomena, to use the pure kantian nomenclature. Beyond this treshold science is and must remain mute.


Besides, science is a human activity. Because of this, is not contradictory or out of limits for any philosopher to be able to use this tool in explaining physical phenomena. This lies perfectly in the competence of philosophy. Philosophy does not exclude any area or field of knowledge in pursue of the exploration of the first causes. Science, also, must be remembered and kept always in mind, developed put of philosophical activity and cogitation. Philophia est mater omnium scientiarum.

Dictum est

Answer 7

I personally have never heard that science is 100% logical. I believe that the more we know, the more we know we don't know.

Eventually in your education you will realize that.

Nothing in life is absloute. Basic math perhaps is absolute.

I consider the study of sciences to be pratices.

All we have to do is go back in history and see that some things that were absolute at one time soon was disproved......for instance when people thought the world was flat.

We can't be arrogent enough to think that our generation has finally figured everything out.
That really limits our brains.

Why be limited?

Answer 8

The late G.I. Gurdjieff stated that there are three levels of knowledge:

1]the philosophical
2]the theoretical
3]the practical

Any idea must pass from the philosophical, through the theoretical, to the practical, to be truly verified as a fact,
or truly useful.

Philosophy poses a question or idea.
Science and mathematics takes that, and theorizes how it works.
Finally, practical application is pursued.

Answer 9

To through their ideas against the screen of reality. Sometimes philosophers posit things that can not be true; meta-physicists, for one. The scientific method does not lead to error of itself, but of it's applicators; humans. You know philosophers who say that philosophy must remain subject to scientific verification, such as John Searle, Jerry Fodor and Daniel Dennet, to name a few. It works in science in that way. Physics is the check point of all science, as no science posits anything outside the laws of physics.

Answer 10

Because science and philosophy often seek to answer the same questions.

Answer 11

I don't want to sound to negative on this metaphor, but my analogy goes: it's pretty much like kicking dirt while thinking, most of the time it's just dust in the wind, but every once in awhile you find something of value that gives you something to really think about.