To what extent is philosophy a science?

Question

First, you define Philosophy.Next, you define science.Lastly, to what extent is Philosophy a science?

Answer 1

Philosophy is organized thinking supported by logic. Science is empirical inquiry supported by logic. A basis in the natural world is necessary to science, whereas it is optional to philosophy. Internal consistency is sufficient to philosophy; science has that and the additional obligation to be consistent with natural laws. Philosophy is not a science, though philosophy and science share the tool of logic.

Answer 2

Philosophy is, in its most literal sense, 'philo-' meaning love, plus '-sophy' meaning wisdom. It is a love of knowledge. It is the desire to question anything. In many senses, philosophy is all about the question 'why'.

The easiest way to describe science is as whatever is produced by using the scientific method. This is a process founded principally upon objective measurement.

In this way, philosophy is as much a part of science as most other endeavors. Most colleges don't give you a degree in physics (for example) but a degree in natural philosophy focusing on physics. If you take the 'why' out of science, all you have is a recording of facts with no explanation or wonder (reminds me of some horrible history books I've read). Indeed, why would anyone even WANT to record data unless it was to answer a philosophical question?

Requiring measurement against objective references is essentially what differentiates science from some other forms of philosophy. There is no yardstick by which we can measure 'ethics' or 'divinity' or the 'best way to live'. If we ever develop one, those fields will probably just be tucked into science. This is actually a good proof that all sciences are philosophies - if you go back far enough, you can find times when any of them lacked the proper tools to be objective, and each was universally considered to be a part of philosophy at that time. Many institutions STILL refer to science as 'natural philosophy'.

Both science and philosophy have another characteristic that can differentiate them from other pursuits: they try to be useful and add to or correct the total of human knowledge. Thus new philosophies tend to replace - or at least elaborate on - the old. Argument and peer review are considered essential in both, and even philosophers tend to consider ideas which cannot possibly ever be falsified as belonging more to the realm of fiction writers than actual philosophy.

Answer 3

This is difficult, but I will try. Science has an object for its research and so has philosophy the object here is very vast: what is.
Science has a method and so has philosophy: the method of correct reasoning.
Science does not judge, on the other hand philosophy judges: what is ethical? I think this is an advantage of philosophy over science.
The theories of science are based on principles given by philosophy (for example the principle of non contradiction). In other words: no philosophy no science.
Hope this is of help for the time being.

Answer 4

Philosophy "study of wisdom." Science "study of nature." Philosophy is not science.

Philosophy is like music. There are parts that require logic but the big point supposed to be artistic; to fulfill one's spirit perhaps.

Statistics are rarely used for philosophy. Studies are rarely done. It is not a science in that sense.

Studying wisdom (philosophy) on a scientific level would be impossible, except for the Philosophy of Logic.

Answer 5

Problem is, you are trying to tackle the question using logical constructs. That comes later. First you need to look at history of philosophy (at least, the broad trends of the last 100 years). Then you might have a basis for evaluating the central issues, setting the question, and perhaps finding a useful answer.

In the early years of the 20th century, the philosophical realists (in England, philosophers like Bertrand Russell, Broad, Alexander) thought that the key to survival of philosophy as a useful discipline was whether it could be treated as a science and contribute something useful to scientific activity. Essentially, they concluded that by refining the basis of analytical concepts, philosophy could approach the scientific level and usefully contribute to the other scientists. With the coming of Wittgenstein (first version, 1920s) the focus of realism shifted to what became known as analytical philosophy (logical positivism), which focused less on logic per se than on the logical analysis of language. In effect, it aimed on providing the molecular analysis (i.e., the analysis of language units) to clarify scientific and other concepts. But essentially, these efforts, by the late 1940s (Wittgenstein's second theory) among advanced philosophers, and by the late 1950s more generally, hit a road block and the presuppositions of analysis moved on, to the "ordinary language" approach. Efforts to define more clearly than ordinary language usage gave way to acceptance that, in particular contexts (including science) the way that people use language is what is correct use of language. That's about as far as I got in philosophy. In effect, this left me essentially at the position, as far as science is concerned, that the question of science is not what science is (whch should be subject to definition, as you assume) but rather what scientists do, in various fields, and using various methods (mathematical, instrumental observation, controlled experimens, etc..) The philosophy that seems most useful in this area is not definitional philosophy but instrumentalism (e.g., Bridgman, Rappoport, et seq).

Answer 6

Philosophy isn't a science. Science is that which can be studied or performed using the scientific method- empirical experiments. Philosophy sometimes employs empirical analogies to help make things easier to understand, but there's nothing empirical about philosophy itself. It involves chains of abstract reasoning based on the rules of logic (which is basically like math, except using words and concepts instead of numbers).

Answer 7

I suppose that any give theory or idea in philosophy has to be accepted and understood by the philosphical community before it can be considered a valid theory. It doesn't necessarily have to be "repeatable", but it has to follow logically from other ideas or it will be rejected.