Is science merely just another philosophy?

Question

In my humble opinion I think that science is merely a social construct theory, in that it is created by humans in our attempts to understand the meaning of life.

Science relys so much on theory and is NOT based in fact, nor does it explain what the 'truth' really is. It could be said that Science is just another branch of philosophy...

What do you think?

S
the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1590–16

Answer 1

Obviously, you don't understand the definition of "theory." Theories are regarded as truth because they can, essentially, be proved. Religion and other philosophies cannot be regarded as fact because there is no way of proving them.

Answer 2

Sounds like you are being fed a pack of lies about science by someone or some group.

We have to have reliable ways of determining what is true and the scientific method does that by requiring that any idea, concept, hypothesis, belief, whatever be verified by tests, by many people and many times. If the hypothesis survives the tests it can become a theory, which is a reasonable explanation of why things behave the way they do. If it fails then the hypothesis has to be revised and/or more observations have to be made. Verified hypothesis can also become a scientific law, which is a way of predicting what will happen. Most laws tend to be mathematical formulas, whereas theories tend to be expressed in a scientific language.

Now the way the word "theory" is used in science is the same way that you use the word "fact". Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a fact, for example.

All theories are models of reality and never confused with reality. You are confused to think that truth is about some ultimate reality or that knowledge and facts are some ultimate reality.

The value of the scientific method is that it is useful. Beliefs that cannot be verified are worthless as a source of truth or facts.

Answer 3

Of course it is. Philosophy is merely a love of knowledge. Philosophers are those who seek out knowledge. Scientists obviously fall into that category. Ask who the most important scientist is and you'll probably get one of three answers: Aristotle, one of the forefathers of Philosophy and a believer in a single god, albeit not a religiously defined one; Newton, a Christian; Einstein, a Jew.

I remember hearing a statistic once that the university subject with the second largest amount of people who believe in some sort of God are physicists. Heck, my biology teacher didn't believe in evolution, didn't stop him teaching it.

The important thing about science is that it is a branch of philosophy, the one that involves empirical evidence, proving and proving again. What we consider philosophy these days deals with those things that science can't adequately explain.

The problem comes when you get religious zealots who don't fully understand the science behind something and pronounce it heresy. When my biology teacher taught us evolution he was teaching it as a science, as that which could be proven as plausible. As much as he may have prefered creation theory, he was well aware that there is no plausible evidence for it, so he never mentioned it until asked directly as to his belief on the matter once.

The point is that science and religion are both branches of the same universal search for knowledge that we should all strive for and are entirely compatible.

Answer 4

I see your point.

Statistics are used to give science it's fact finding basis. Therefore all scientific facts are actually only a statistical difference. This would mean that the base belief is in the power of statistics rather than the all knowing power of truth and any hypothesis is looking to understand the world.

Science cannot be described as another branch of philosophy however, owing to it's quantative research basis. It deals with the known and measureable world rather than the abstract history of ideas that philosophy attempts to explain.

In science there is a proveable difference, be it a standard deviation or a significant difference, in philosophy a theory is not so easy to define.

Answer 5

The domain of science is within the domain of the known, in the physical world. All that affects, influences, alters and interacts physically comes under scientific scope of inquiry. Science in fact is a humble discipline in comparison that uses experimental approaches to find facts about life, matter and everything in the universe, whereas, Philosophy uses facts to know the Truth. All Philosophy is downwardly compatible with Science. The creation of science is not with a purpose ‘to understand the meanings of life’ as you suppose. This is what Philosophy does. The purpose of Science is to enable us to manage life as far as we understand it and know it through science. Philosophy means love of wisdom of life, whereas the wisdom of science is in its organisation and containment. Science asks precise and specific questions arranged in a sequential lines of inquiry leading from the simplest to the complex of situations. Philosophy on the other hand asks big questions the precise answers to which often cannot be found, as only opinion and arguments can be presented in response.

Answer 6

Ah, but it depends on how they came to those "truths". Theories can be disproved... eg 19th-century racists "proved" that white Europeans were more intelligent by measuring head sizes but the samples they used were biased. ie they had an agenda and wanted to "prove" their hypothesis but they didn't do it objectively and so it could only be disproved at a later time. Science along with the social sciences is a philosophy and that is why it is a subject at Masters level in the Open University - methodologies and discourses...

Answer 7

No, however the applying of scientific approach would have components of philosophy in it. technology is a self-discipline with a fashion of continuously reviewing itself. I describe technology as a technique that on no account ends by using fact what all of us understand now can and could substitute based upon extra advantageous instrumentation that became no longer accessible previously - a suited occasion of it relatively is the Hubble area Telescope. And once you're saying "concept" in technology it has an completely diverse meaning than that from hardship-unfastened language utilization. In technology "concept" means a set of suggestions that has been notably examined. This fake impact is often used as an argument against evolution whilst human beings say that it particularly is "in simple terms an theory" - they are thoroughly fake impact the meaning of a scientific concept. in case you think of technology is in step with concept and not fact, then for sure you moreover would do no longer understand the meaning of the observe "concept" whilst it includes technology. with out recent technology there could be no vaccinations, no techniques surgical treatment, no computers, no rocket ships to outer area. technology is quite based on fact and so which you will assert in any different case is to tutor which you do no longer understand what technology is.

Answer 8

I appreciate your candor regarding your humble opinion. Interesting question. I'd like to respond with another: How many religious fundamentalists contributed to discovering electricity, inventing the light-bulb, the combustion engine, space flight, or the genome project?

Funny how some facts are glossed over to make a fatuous assertion, huh?

Answer 9

But what about the demonstrable truths provided by science ? Its not all just theory. Interesting question, though.

Answer 10

sorry but i dont completely see the theory conspiracy youre talking about....science is facts...ie dna is what makes your body the way it is, eyes the color they are, and other genetic make up what it is....science that is still in the process of being proven is theory...once it has been proven it is fact and science and truth dont necessarily have anything to do with one another other than proof....it is true that my eyes are blue and it is proven that dna determines this...i dont see much theory in that statement do you?