It’s not that philosophy and science are not compatible. It’s that philosophy and pseudoscience are incompatible and there’s a whole lot of pseudoscience out there.
It’s not that philosophy and science are not compatible. It’s that philosophy and pseudoscience are incompatible and there’s a whole lot of pseudoscience out there.
Science and philosophy have always learned from each other. Philosophy tirelessly draws from scientific discoveries fresh strength, material for broad generalizations, while to the sciences it imparts the world-view and methodological impulses of its universal principles.
Not a chiro. quote but very fitting, I thought
Steve, where did you get that quote?
Try this Claude,
3rd paragraph
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch01-s04.html
Thank you Steve.
Philosophy vs. science or even pseudo-science is truly an issue confusing conventional wisdom with fact. The major premise – universal intelligence is safe on its own a priori.
James , welcome to the blog and thanks for your insight. I hope you will feel free to comment often in the future.
I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here:
The same could be said for philosophy. There is philosophy and pseudo philosophy. Science is perfectly compatible with true philosophy.
It is science and pseudo-philosophy are incompatible and there is a whole gammut of pseudo-philosophy out there.
It is not the other way around. {…bracing for impact…} >:|
Thank you for playing Devil’s Advocate. Yes! I agree there is in deed junk philosophy perhaps “thinking outside the box”. Cliches often rule the high seas of our lives. But that aside, reading Dr. Strauss and the meaning of universal intelligence is more the constant I appreciate. I love our philosophy even more than when I was first in service 38 years ago. I ramble but I thank Joe for making even more fun presently. Take the best of care.
Devil’s Advocate
Pseudo is an adjective
meaning 1. not genuine; sham.
Junk is a noun or verb
Meaning noun: 1. old or discarded articles that are considered useless or of little value.
verb: 1. discard or abandon unceremoniously.
What I am putting forward is the idea that some of the philosophy that some contend is true and genuine is actually a sham and pseudo philosophy. It has not been abandon or discarded.
As Devil’s Advocate, I contend that Science is perfectly compatible with the true version of philosophy.
Science is incompatible with sham or pseudo-philosophy.
Also, Science is compatible with junk philosophy insofar as the philosophy is junk philosophy and has been discarded and abandon therefore there is no conflict.
If it has not been discarded then well…it is not it isn’t junk philosophy anymore. It is something else.
Thank you James Milliron for engaging this advocate! 🙂
Riddle me this Batman,
Is pseudo- science compatible with pseudo -philosophy?????
Batman here.
I would say that depends on the definition we are using above for those two terms. 🙂
Well two wrongs never made a right but two Wrights did make an airplane, and sometimes two negatives make a positive, but pseu pseu pseudo is as pseudo does. (my apologies to Phil Collins and Forrest Gump)
Steve,
You always did have a way with words.
How on Earth can I respond to your post now that you quoted Forrest Gump and Phil Collins?
🙂