explain philosophy as a science?

Question

i want to know the details about philosophy as a science

Answer 1

It isn't, nor is science "a science".

Answer 2

philosophy is not a science. science is a philosophy. there is in addition a philosophy of science field, and in addition scientific methods and facts are often used in philosophical analysis. Indeed, a philosophy that completely contradicted the results of science would be greeted with skepticism unless there was a powerful argument behind it questioning the validity of the scientific assumptions or at least an explanation of the differences as being compatible.

Moreover, the end of philosophy that wittgenstein discussed is not some objective fact written up in the heavens, it is itself a highly debatable philosophical proposition that has a heavy burden of proof against it as everything a lot of people seem to be doing seems to be philosophical analysis until proved definatively otherwise by a knockdown argument. There are whole breeds of impotent philosophers that reduce everything to some conceptual or linguistic analysis. This is the result of alienation from the actual pre-conceptual phenomena.

Answer 3

First, one must remember all sciences trace their origins back to philosophy; more specifically Aristotle. He started the ball rolling, so to speak concerning the pursuit of empirical science. Aristotle unlike Plato wasn't as interested in the eternal truths of the Forms. He was more concerned about the here and now. Philosophy is still considered a science of the second order, however, originally it was the original science. Science is primarily concerned with empirical knowledge, which is a part of Epistemology, but there is another part of philosophy that doesn't, A priori knowledge. Mathematics falls into this category.
Philosophy has to do with the acquisition of knowledge as does science, so the two are related in that manner.

Answer 4

Descartes hoped to make philosophy scientific, and to a degree he did succeed. But his system of philosophy has not survived as well as (for instance) his mathematical innovations do.

After him Spinoza attempted to prove theorems in ethical philosophy like theorems in geometry. The proofs were fine, and the whole edifice was elegant and ingenious, but it has few supporters now. It is only too easy to suggest that Spinoza chose his axioms so as to arrive at the conclusions he wanted. To disagree with his philosophy you don't have to tangle with his proofs at all, merely deny some of his starting assumptions.

The thing is that science and mathematics are simply not good models for philosophy. Philosophy can question and criticise science, but science cannot criticise philosophy in the same way. Of course scientific discoveries can be used to undermine certain philosophical theories, but as a whole philosophy stands above science, not the other way round.

There is a philosophy of science, but there is not a science of philosophy.

Answer 5

By the way, philosophy is still around. Those who think it isn't should get outside of their stultifying academic cave. Anyone who wonders about the meaning of life is a philosopher in essence, though not necessarily a well developed one.
Science is impotent as a philosophy, and despite its fondest efforts, as a religion too.
To answer you question, Philosophy as science is a bad marriage. Philosophy as science means you try to apply scientific methods to answer philosophy's questions--a road that leads nowhere. To understand why, read about the methodology of science, something scientists themselves often forget.

Answer 6

Philosophy was replaced by science in the 18th century. Scientists were known as 'natural philosophers', before the term changed in the 18th and 19th century to scientist. There is no live subject today called philosophy. It's of interest as a historical study only. Have a read of Wittgenstein who brought philosophy to a close in the 20th century, by showing how philosophy no longer had a distinct domain of enquiry.

Answer 7

In ancient Greece, philosophy concerned itself with the purpose of life and the anatomy of sea urchins with equal enthusiasm. In the 17th century, Western philosophy split between two camps -- the rationalists, who believed that the greatest truths and principles in life could be deduced abstractly like geometric theorems; and the empiricists, who thought that truth can only be deduced from observations of the real world. Over time, the rationalists became the ones more focused on big picture ideas about meaning and existence and the like, while empiricists focused more on why candles get smaller. Both schools were enamored with rigorous logic (one of the great cornerstones of science) but only the empiricists were devotees of experimentation (the other great cornerstone).

Modern-day science is descended from both. Scientists use rational models to explain their empirical observations. Those of you who claim that science is only observational must have never used calculus - the invention of a rationalist! - to work out angular momentum in quantum physics. (I haven't either. I'm just sayin, that's all.) And don't forget that modern mathematics, based entirely on rationalist thought, has produced some pretty cool real-world applications. Don't believe me? Take a long hard look at the device you're using right now.

But what about the big questions the rationalists were fond of? The ones about life, meaning, etc? When most people think of philosophy, those are the topics that come to mind. Well, there might be a few dogged philosophers out there who still apply good old tough-as-nails logic on those questions, but most Philosophy Departments have abandoned the methods of Descartes in favor of tedious semantics. No one is holding out hope for firm, irrefutable answers to the big questions. (People that claim to have them are usually simpletons or charlatans, whose reasoning lacks the logical rigor that made Socrates & his buddies so famous.)

This is a pretty long answer, and I apologize. To sum it all up, let's just call philosophy the parent of science, and let's call 1% of modern philosophy a valiant struggle and the other 99% a load of crap.

Answer 8

Science, by definition, is an experimental process. Philosophy does not enter the world of experimentalism. Therefore, I don't believe it is correct to think of philosophy as a science.

Note, however, that all of science is based on philosophical beliefs.

Answer 9

Philosophy is not a science.

Answer 10

Logival ranges is a type device used with a sequence of thoughts or products belonging to the comparable logical variety as one yet another. in accordance to Bertrand Russell (Principa Mathematica), in his thought of logical varieties, the class to which member products belong would be unable to be a member of itself. it could even nevertheless, be a member of a variety of training at a greater point of abstraction. it rather is the disctinction on which using logical ranges in NLP has rested till these days. in accordance to Steve Andreas, there is an exception to that wherein a variety can belong to the comparable type as its participants. this occurs while the class and its participants are defined as being of the comparable logical variety as one yet another, which we do while organising no remember if soemthing belongs in a definite hierarchy of logical ranges. Andreas skill it rather is is greater clever to think of in terms of the scope of a thought. it rather is greater versatile than basically the logical point of a thought relative to its classifiable logical variety. Chunking sideways is the only development from which Edward de Bono derived lateral thining codecs and quite a few different very properly-known appropriate advertising books. Lateral thinking is the comparable development as "abductive thinking", as defined in Gregory Bateson in "Steps to an Ecology of thoughts". Bateson replaced into an important source of advice to Bandler and Grinder while they have been first arising NLP. the recent Code NLP presupposes Gregory Bateson's standards for thoughts; thoughts consists of various distinctive and interrelated factors which respond to information of distinction as advice. This interactivity and interconnection ends up in emergence of latest skills, know-how etc. at a greater logical point than that of the element areas. it rather is facilitated interior the recent Code interior the direction of the emphasis on distinctive descriptions.

Answer 11

Philiosophy is not a science - it is the basis of and for science