2007-01-24 21:54:41 · 8 answers · asked by steveb9458 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Science is based on observation and logic... philosophy is based on insightful thinking and logic... none can replace the other... both are always going to be like two eyes for us!!! You need both to see properly!!!!!!
2007-01-24 22:05:36 · answer #1 · answered by small 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If this were the case, then philosophy would assume the same role as science has against religion - this can be added here that it is not automatically scientific to pose against religion, as the primary purpose of science is inherently objective, but scientific approaches are used to disprove claims made by religion, which is the fact.
Religion claims to be the answer to all questions concerning human life and living providing followers a unifying discipline for the mind incorporating all that exists in all possible worlds. Now, if science would do just that, if it would come up with anything this universal in scale and dimension, and that also only theoretical, then philosophy do the job of questioning; it would raise all possible questions about all things being proposed so certainly. Philosophy would doubt vehemently what science would propose theoretically, without a proof. This is exactly how science is being used against all disciplines unscientific.
2007-01-24 23:10:17 · answer #2 · answered by Shahid 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We already have a unified theory of everything. It is found written in the pages of the Bible.
The closest thing I've heard of re: scientific unified theory has to do with string theory. I don't see any contradictions between it and Bible and don't see that it would affect my philosophy at all. It's a rather joyous theory.
But everything you need to know about how unified theory effects your life is found in the knowledge of God through Jesus
Christ.
2007-01-24 22:49:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no such thing as a distinct mode of human enquiry called 'philosophy'. Wittgenstein and (in a different way) Nietzsche finally brought philosophy to a close in the 19th and 20th centuries. But even before them it had already been superceded by natural science, and in particular the branch of physics.
If anyone disagress with this, then try and name me one genuinely 'philosophical problem'. There aren't any. There are problems of science, of knowledge, of logic, of the mind, of values, but to speak of them as 'philosophical problems' is, in the Wittgensteinian sense, to misuse natural language. The only reason philosophy continues is because professors and academics have careers resting on perpetuating the myth that it is a real subject with its own distinct epistemological province. It isn't.
The fly is out the fly bottle. Don't try and crawl back in!
2007-01-25 23:48:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Would it make a big difference to philosophy? We pretty much know that the world is governed by complex rules, we just don't know what they are yet. I guess we might find out whether the world has complete determinism at it's heart, if so that is quite profound in terms of the potential for free will and divine intervention (there would be none).
2007-01-25 01:09:31 · answer #5 · answered by CT 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Science did NOT produce a unified theory of everything... sorry.
2007-01-24 21:58:46 · answer #6 · answered by Invisible_Flags 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
by extending a 0 grade to those smart scientists!
2007-01-24 22:00:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If science did that it wouldn't be science. You should think a little more before you pose questions.
2007-01-24 21:58:35 · answer #8 · answered by Another۞Human 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋