• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

Does Science Prove that Physicalism is True? No.

So you have had your rant. We all know that science cannot explain everything, but what it can explain it does so pretty well. What's next? Is there something better? Philosophy explains nothing; it just "talks". Is there a point to the thread besides your rant?

This is simply not true. Philosophy explains a great deal, including why and how science functions.
 
Just throwing a term at me doesn't improve my understanding.
It is literally the study of science :)
About methods, scope, limits, implications etc.
Most people would place its foundation in Platosocrates, where there is beyond extensive discussion of limits and scope in orders like physics and mathematics - in the other thread I mentioned Socrates/Plato's view that the physical sciences (like astronomy) shouldn't be in the Academy, because they are significantly dependent on the senses (unlike math). Their differences can of course be tracked directly to why in math you have proofs, while in the sciences experiments; the observer being distinct from the object, in sciences (consequently the object is picked up by the observer's specific senses, not as what it might be "itself"), is juxtaposed to the observer and object being both fully in the mental world in the case of math.
The examination continued in Aristotle, who was far more appreciative of the sciences, which is also why his writings are the first in a large number of scientific fields - and he literally named them.

This lack of appreciation of physics etc, when compared to math, isn't rare at all. Archimedes is a famous example of it - he never cared about the ingenious inventions he created, when he had to defend Syracuse; only saw great value in math. Famously he also made discoveries in physics (hydrostatics' "eureka" moment) and chemistry (purity of composition etc). But in his tomb he wanted his proof inscribed, of the volume area of solids, in which he used his proto-calculus.
 
Last edited:
Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It is concerned with the mind's relation to reality. What is it for this relation to be one of knowledge? Do we know things? And if we do, how and when do we know things?

We all agree science is a method, right?
 
Just throwing a term at me doesn't improve my understanding.

Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, what it means to know things, and how (and whether) we (can) know things.

The whole of science is grounded on philosophy. Science and the scientific method itself emerged out of philosophical discussions between early scientists (who at the time were called, and referred to themselves, as natural philosophers). The scientific method, and consequently all subsequently generated scientific knowledge largely rest on unstated assumptions which emerged out of those philosophical discussions, and much of the nature of science’s epistemic knowledge and its limits is still hotly debated today (e.g. whether it’s possible to know things outside of the subjective knower, what can actually determined solely through science’s fundamental and singular emphasis on empiricism, whether some fields of study are better examined via other kinds of knowing, etc.)

There’s actually a really interesting book that covers the intellectual history of the emerge of science as a formal discipline, and the development of its philosophical grounding in the 18th century. I’d have to get home to give you the citation, but a lot of the things that we kind of take for granted about science which are basically just collective handshakes we’ve made on big (open!) epistemic questions for the sake of consistent and reliable practice. For instance, the thing where you don’t say something is confirmed *true*, but rather is *probably* true as the best current explanation of the existing facts, and so will be the working theory until disproven by someone else- that’s a philosophical position that was developed gradually in the early 18th century through epistemic discussions.

And this is just the *epistemology* of science, it’s not even touching the big questions about the ethics of science, and ethical scientific practice, which is it’s own can of worms and whole other branch of philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Science and the scientific method itself emerged out of philosophical discussions between early scientists (who at the time were called, and referred to themselves, as natural philosophers).

Interesting. I always understood that science and scientific method predates Greek philosophers, as in, people were applying both, to a degree, in architecture, perhaps agriculture. Would it be more precise to say that science and scientific method were formalised during Greek times, instead of emerging?
 
The application of observation and thought followed by actions predate Greece and even Sumer. It is a human trait that we even see in other critters. Formalizing the process with words came much later.
 
When I read how and why I read that as philosphy explaining how and why the method of science works. And I can't see the application there.
It sounds like the how and why intended is describing the framework where science operates in. I can see the application there.
 
Interesting. I always understood that science and scientific method predates Greek philosophers, as in, people were applying both, to a degree, in architecture, perhaps agriculture. Would it be more precise to say that science and scientific method were formalised during Greek times, instead of emerging?
Sounds about right. The basic principle could be even earlier in a very crude form.

Doing something stupid that hurts and then not doing that anymore. Tell your friends not to do the same stupid thing and if they don't believe you, they can see for themselves. Untill the stupid thing becomes accepted as a stupid thing.

@Kyriakos I just saw your edit, thanks for the effort.
 
Interesting. I always understood that science and scientific method predates Greek philosophers, as in, people were using both, to a degree, in architecture, perhaps agriculture. Would it be more precise to say that science and scientific method were formalised during Greek times, instead of emerging?

Oh no, I’m talking about the early-18th century, and specifically referring to like, intellectual interaction (and in some cases literal correspondence) between, Pascal, Newton, Leibniz, Clarke, Bernoulli, etc. like yes most of these conversations build off of classical Greek (and Medieval European/Arabic!) philosophical questions and observations. But you can actually very literally trace the development of much of the modern scientific method through research and correspondence between philosophers, mathematicians, and theologians in the period ~1680-1780.

These philosophical questions very literally kept them up at night!
 
Last edited:
These philosophical questions very literally kept them up at night!
It was fresh and new and reshaping their world as fast as letter correspondence could, much like politics, gender, and global warming are for folks on the internet today. They keep many folks up at night now. :)
 
When I read how and why I read that as philosphy explaining how and why the method of science works. And I can't see the application there.
It sounds like the how and why intended is describing the framework where science operates in. I can see the application there.
Having a defined framework is mostly useful for telling people who aren't doing science, why they are not doing science (not that they usually listen).

The practical process of doing science rarely aligns with the idealized Scientific Method(TM)

Doing something stupid that hurts and then not doing that anymore.
Obligatory xkcd quote:
 
To the cartoon. I had a philosophy professor in college who would very pointedly look at the lights every time he turned on the light switch, as though no number of instances of the lights coming on when he flipped the switch would convince him that the next time it would be true too.
 
To the cartoon. I had a philosophy professor in college who would very pointedly look at the lights every time he turned on the light switch, as though no number of instances of the lights coming on when he flipped the switch would convince him that the next time it would be true too.

That's not totally unreasonable if you're in an area or situation where power outages can happen, or other strange things.


True story from one of the many science fiction conventions I attended in Calgary in the '80s and '90s:

Saturday afternoon, I'm in my hall costume (long black dress, head covering, black cape, silver jewelry, various other things such as those you'd find in a Larry Elmore painting of magic users, though I drew the line at skulls and bones; I did have feathers), and someone comes up to me, confidently stating that I must be part of the "spiral dance" panel coming up in a few minutes. (the term "cosplay" hadn't been coined yet)

I said no, I didn't even know what a "spiral dance" was. I was headed to the panel titled "Are These the Dark Ages?".

She argued with me; apparently people involved in "spiral dance" dress like Larry Elmore paintings? (though I was more covered up than his female subjects tend to be).

Anyway, she went to her panel, I went to mine. When we all got settled in our chairs, the moderator began by saying, "So. ARE these the Dark Ages?" (in the sociopolitical sense; this was not likely to be a discussion of what some refer to as the Dark Ages when they mean the Middle Ages, which weren't as "dark" as popular perception thinks they were)

BOOM. Out went the lights. We were literally in the dark. Thing is, nobody had been near the light switches (this was in a hotel). Everyone was either sitting down in the audience or up on the platform where the moderator and panelists sat.

What likely happened was an accident. We decided to blame it on the spiral dance panel next door, since they had turned off the lights for their panel (not sure if they used battery-powered candles or real ones).

To this day I don't know why the lights went out like that. It wasn't a practical joke, since nobody was close enough to have switched them off at that exact moment. But it did provide us with a memorable hour or so.
 
It is undoubtedly the case that one day he could flip the light switch and no lights could come on; his radical skepticism was warranted. That said, each of the thirty-odd times I was present for it, the lights did in fact come on.
 
Bet he appreciated them more each time than, possibly, the rest of the room put together.
 
Well, maybe, but he brought us in to his skepticism (I assume that was the point, that it was performative). We watched him watching the lights go on, and that was amusing to us in its own way.

But I get your point. Things can become routine and we reinvest them with meaning if we break ourselves out of those routines.
 
so i read the op.

platonic-aristotlean philosophy is realist?

i'm very confused as to how the greek idealists pertain to a lot of the concepts you throw around. there's a lot of it i'm unsure they'd agree with. even if you said mixed. it's kind of hard to parse.
 
Top Bottom