Philosophy vs. Science
Posted: 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?
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?