Philosophy vs. Science

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:39 pm

What is the exact boundary between philosophy and science?

My hypothesis is that we can make a definition of an observation and still remain within certainty and philosophy. But if we try to create another definition based on the first one, then the second becomes uncertain and we start doing science at that point.

E.g. I know there is a book in front of me, because I have defined this set of perceptions as a "book". But if I take that definition and define "opening the book" before I actually open it, then that definition is uncertain. Not only am I not certain if I can open the book or not, but (maybe) an even more fundamental reason that it's uncertain is that I tried to base a observational definition on another one.

So I think we can take observational definitions to only one level of depth while remaining in philosophy.

What do you think?

Kevin Solway · Post by **Kevin Solway** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:46 pm

E.g. I know there is a book in front of me, because I have defined this set of perceptions as a "book". But if I take that definition and define "opening the book" before I actually open it, then that definition is uncertain.

You could define "opening the book" as a future possibility, contingent on other factors, so you could stay within the certainty of definitions.

Matt Gregory · Post by **Matt Gregory** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:44 pm

Ah right. If the definition takes the uncertainty into account, then it becomes certain again.

unknown · Post by **unknown** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:18 pm

both for fools who intend on killing time.

Blair · Post by **Blair** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 3:24 pm

That's exactly what you are doing unknown, killing time. Don't fool yourself otherwise.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Wed Nov 30, 2005 4:38 pm

I think as long as we keep the Truth of the infinite in mind as we perform in depth analysis of something, we would still be respecting philosophy. I call this real science, science performed without philosphy in mind is vane. Therefore there is no boundary between philosophy and science. For science to truly be called science, one must first be philisophic in nature.

The scientists of today start at the bottom and try to work their way up. What they should be doing is starting at the top and working their way down. With the top being the infinite it's no wonder that as they try and work from the bottom, multiple questions are realized for every one they merely think they've solved

"To find Reality you must go to the root. Many flitter around on the branches; some realize that all the branches come from the trunk. But the Truth is deeper still! Even when one gets to the root, what is the root of the root?" - Kevin Solway