Since there are sicence and psychology,is still necessary for philsoshy to be exist?

Question

I mean since everything can be explained by science,do you think we still need philosophy?
If yes,what are philosophy researching for?

Answer 1

Honestly...most people will tell you science and logic do not have all the answers, and I for one actually agree with that statement.

Take for example the Big Bang, scientists cannot really tell you what "caused" the Big Bang to happen, or really what was there before the Big Bang. Logic also goes so far to a degree, but can also contradictory to even basic behaviour - acting impulsively for example. In most cases, it would be illogical to act impulsively, yet we still do from time to time. you break down emotions logically and they become something different altogether.

Many philosophers are known to believe that "Knowledge is justified true belief". Take this example:

You see raindrops falling on a window, you hear the raindrops hitting said window pane, you see your friend come in soaking went, leaving wet footprints everwhere, s/he shakes their umbrella out and it sprays water everywhere. You have excellent grounds to believe it is raining outside and could constitute justified true belief, yet its' also possible someone could have stuck a sprinkler outside to play a trick on you for some reason.

Philosophy is there to really question even the very basic elements of our existence and understanding, why we see things the way we do, even down to the very nature of our reality (subjective at best in my opinion). Rather than (in some ways) being one of the sheep and just ambling on, getting drawn into the crap of everday life, you might sit there and think that perhaps there's another perspective to think about. Philosophy can help us think about things from a different angle, another perspective, which in turn can also be transferred into more practical uses than to ask "Is colour a mind-dependant concept?" for example.

And to be fair, I think everyone I've ever spoken to ultimately holds some form of philosophical beliefs about something. Also makes you question the very fundamentals such as right or wrong, good or bad.

For example, a man mugs and beats another man almost to death. That person is sent to hospital, meets a nurse who he falls in love with, they get married and have a child that becomes the new "Bill Gates" of "Buddha" or something. Ultimately, was the act of the guy beating up and mugging someone else wrong?

If a man goes into a store and steals a loaf of bread for his family, is it wrong? Morally, he is stealing no matter how you look at it, but he's doing it for the greater benefit of others long term.

So I'd say it has some uses to this day, even though most my friends won't touch it with a barge-pole! ;)

Just my two pennies

Toodles

Answer 2

As a scientist and philosopher, I must tell you that not everything can be explained by science, and I don't know why this is thought to be the case. Because, first of all, what do you even mean by "explain"?

What science does is examine and investigate the nature world, the world that is empirically observable. Theories and background assumptions are used to make models that predict how the observable universe should behave. Suppose a model I have makes a false prediction. Then it cannot be correct - but can I ever know for certain that it's the theory that's wrong, not the background assumptions? Can we ever know this for science as a whole? No.

Theories, like the theory of natural selection, "explain" some observable phenomena in terms of others by showing how they are related and connected (natural selection results from relative fitness of adaptations to an organism's environment). But they don't explain, for instance, why the phenomena are related in that way, or could this have been different? And is this the case everywhere, etc.? We cannot even begin to scientifically investigate so many things.

We need philosophy. Philosophy answers the questions that cannot be purely tested by science - all questions for which no empirical experiment or collection of data will answer them.

The traditional areas of philosophy are ethics (how we should live), metaphysics (what exists), logic (how should we think) and epistemology (how do we know things). You may say that science should be epistemology, but this is not a scientific claim, nor can you evaluate or prove it scientifically. It is deep down a philosophical question, as are all those others.

So too are things like aesthetics, history, theology, etc. - basically every question you can ask about ourselves, our world and how we fit into it - and all those "why" questions we ask as children - is philosophy. For all of human history, philosophy has been the heart and soul of all thought and inquiry. I think it will always be.

"Without mathematics we cannot penetrate deeply into philosophy. Without philosophy we cannot penetrate deeply into mathematics. Without both we cannot penetrate deeply into anything." - Leibniz

Answer 3

Yes, because science & psychology do not explain everything. Once the human race is able to explain everything, then there will be no need for philosophy. That will probably never happen.

If there were no philosophy, there would be no science. Every scientific experiment that has ever lead to a theory starts with a philosophical question.

Answer 4

As someone who loves science I'm telling you this: science cannot explain everything. What it rather does is to model the world(the physical world) using mathematics. And science is still far, far away from a Theory of Everything(that is, IF all our partial theories can actually be united into one all-encompassing theory). And yeah, its scope is actually quite limited. It CANNOT prove nor disprove any conjecture that is not even falsifiable or verifiable in nature.

*edited*
Philosophy arose as a natural consequence of the inasatiable curiosity of man. Man cannot live by bread alone; there are things, profound questions that linger in a person's mind that has to be answered in some way(that's why science and religion arose in the first place). Who am I? Who are you? Why am I here? I believe that even if you know the whole map of your genome down to the last nucleotide, you still won't be able to answer the first question. The fact is there are still a myriad of profound questions that needs to be answered. And as long as there are questions, there is philosophy.

And since I doubt that we humans will ever run out of questions, I guess philosophy is here to stay for better or for worse.

Answer 5

Yes, philosophy is still necessary. Psychology and other sciences are essentially nothing more than tools and procedures for gathering information, and are completely neutral in regards to moral issues. No science can ever tell you what purposes to follow or how to live your life.

Answer 6

Philosophy arise from the universal consciousness and is timeless. It is driving the next level of human evolution, transcending the thinkig mind. Anyway, I do not think that science explains everything.

Answer 7

it somewhat is extra like that element isn't what we expect of it somewhat is. events are prepared interior the innovations so Time is extra conceptual. The previous exists interior the present. How we adventure it, and adventure it lower back, creates new impacts so that is not static yet dynamic. As for the destiny, we are able to adventure impressions of it, and remember them, and react to them, yet we don't remember the destiny interior the comparable way by way of fact the previous. even although Time does not exist as we conceive of it, futures can unfold in somewhat some approaches finding on cutting-edge strikes, and for many human beings in our relative state of understanding, Time does seem to be a linear progression, and subsequently is what might desire to be seen a useful certainty.

Answer 8

In my view, science and technology are tools to improve our life.... philosophy is the way to know and set its purpose...... it is just the way and does not guarantee the goal and yet, we must traverse the path before hoping ever to reach.

Answer 9

The Inadequacies of Science


I feel compelled to show the inadequacies of science, I will render it into a belief system as well.
I take this position because all of science is inductive. Conversely, if you think of a deductive argument you’ll see that the argument is valid because the conclusions are contained implicitly in the premises. Such as the argument;

Premise 1: Socrates is a man,
Premise 2: All men are mortal,
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Validity is assured because there is not anything in the conclusion that is not already contained in the premises. But when one considers scientific (inductive) arguments, such as an argument to prove our premise that “all men are mortal”, it seems we do not have this type of validity. For in the case of inductive arguments we go from evidence to hypothesis as opposed to going from premise to conclusion. This means that there is more information in the hypothesis than what the evidence can warrant, whereas, in deductive arguments the information in the conclusion is less than or equal to that of the premises. Therefore, the evidence of mortality of a few individuals misleadingly establishes or supports the hypothesis that all men are mortal. For example, I am Hispanic, and if one should say that all Hispanics speak Spanish, then for that to be true that someone will have to witness every Hispanic that has lived, does live and will live to verify that statement. Yet, many believe that all Hispanics speak Spanish on the basis of the millions that do speak Spanish. However, I do not speak Spanish. Similarly the mortality of men is assumed in this same way. But there could be someone out there right now who was born 2,000 years ago and has not yet died. Or the next baby born in Japan may never die.
Of course it could be argued that scientists do not proceed from evidence to hypothesis in an arbitrary manner. They “of course, can justify the move from observation (which is the evidence) on the basis of rules, so as to form the hypothesis by generalizing the observations made. Therefore, the move from evidence to hypothesis is justified on the basis of some kind of principle rules, say the scientific method. However, what are the justifications for using these rules?
The rules that are used are justified by assuming a uniformity of nature. This uniformity of nature can be stated in multiple ways. Unobserved instances will resemble observed ones. The future will resemble the past. Every event has a cause and like causes yield like effects. Thus the uniformity of nature is guaranteed by assuming the principle of causality and causation as depicted by David Hume (where Hume claims that causality and causation are not provable, and are not analytic truths, but are instead synthetic empirical truths of which cannot be verified empirically because these principles of causality and causation is what it is meant by a uniformity of nature).
Now here’s the crucial point. There is no ground for the belief in the uniformity of nature, because any such belief would have to be grounded in induction, of which in turn is grounded in the uniformity of nature. Thus any attempt to ground the belief that there is a uniformity of nature is circular. Supposing that there is no uniformity of nature, then I doubt that there even can be rules to use any way.
However, there are some that will say that science is not necessarily inductive. For example, Karl Popper rejected induction when developing his methodology of science. Popper argued that as long as such hypotheses are falsifiable, in the sense that there are possible observations that would disprove them, then the objectivity of science is assured. However, Popper’s falsificationism offers no account of our entitlement to believe in the truth of scientific theories, rather, they only warrant us to believe in their falsity, and so fail to solve the problem of induction. Popper himself stated that it is impossible to verify or even to confirm a universal scientific theory with any positive degree of probability. What we can do though is to disprove a universal theory. That is why we do not believe in the truth of a scientific theory, but their falsity instead. Is it true that scientists always reject their theories when faced with counter-evidence, as Popper says they should? And if the most we can ever do in science is to disprove theories, how do we know which theories to believe an act on? Popper says that we ought to act on those theories that survive severe testing. But since he fails to solve the problem of induction, the induction remains the problem.
Another response to the problem of induction is offered by Bayesian confirmation theory. Bayesians argue that our beliefs come in degrees, and that such degrees of belief, when “rational, conform to the probability calculus”. They then argue that Baye’s theorem implies a rational strategy for updating our degrees of belief in response to new evidence. SADLY, in relation to the problem of induction, this strategy implies that our degree of belief in a scientific theory should be increased by observations which are probable, given the theory, but probable nonetheless because it is based on induction. It also leaves one asking when updating these degrees of belief, to what are they conforming to? They say they are getting closer and closer to the truth, but how do they know that they are getting closer to the truth when the truth is not known? So what are they getting closer to?
I also want wager that most scientist and people for that matter are not familiar with the concept of idealism. Philosophical idealism is not the same as an attitude to be observed in life. It is rather a metaphysical theory about nature of reality and thus presupposes a distinction between appearance and reality, drawn in an other than common sense way. In general, it maintains that what is real is in someway confined to or at least related to the contents of our own minds (of which in turn is loaded with assumptions). What are the reasons; therefore, for thinking that reality is confined to the contents of our minds/ideas? It is because where the perceptions of qualities of things, such as color, taste, warmth, light, is circumstance dependent (I.e. relative to the context in which perception takes place, e.g. the illumination for the eyes) those qualities cannot be real properties of things. It is argued that this is applied to all perception. Since perception is a matter of having sensations or ideas, and since to be is to be perceived, only sensations or ideas can properly be said to be or to be real. The theory of perception, therefore, remains a part of the apparatus of empiricist thought, and is implied in David Hume’s doctrine.
Immanuel Kant held, however, that a mere subjective, idealism would not do in that it did not make it possible to distinguish properly what is objective from what is subjective. Kant thought that idealism must be transcendental, which he tried to define by saying that appearances are to be regarded as being on and all, representations only, not things in themselves, and that time and space are therefore only sensible forms of our intuition, not determinations given as existing by themselves, nor conditions of objects viewed as things in themselves (Critique of Pure Reason).
At any rate, all these forms of idealism have in common the view that there is no access to reality apart from what the mind provides us with, and further that the mind can provide and reveal to us ONLY its own contents (implying that the contents of the mind may or may not represent an external reality). Therefore, science must assume that an external reality exists, and that this reality actually corresponds to what the contents of our minds reveal to us.
Do you know what the funny thing is? It’s funny how science makes theories based on observations, and generalizes these observations to come to a universal theory, like all men die. So it seems that we should infer from pessimistic meta-induction that since all scientific theories have been wrong from Ptolemy to Steve Hawkins, that all current and future scientific theories are ‘probably’ going to be false too.