Philosophy - Philosopy versus Science - What is Philosophy

[DTLarca]

Science and Philosophy are the Disciplines of Systematic Methods of Refutation!

There are two pillars of science - the minor and the major. The minor consists of propositions made about the world and the major consists of the bending over backwards to prove each and every proposition false.

The layman or the scientist might propose that if air is comprised of randomly moving particles then a mote of smoke rising into air will quickly diffuse. The layman or scientist, seeing a mote of smoke rising into the air diffuse will conclude that therefore air indeed is comprised of randomly moving particles.

That all sounds scientific, and it is, but in fact only thereafter do things get truly scientific. The very essence of science, and philosophy for that matter, is the discipline of bending over backwards to prove yourself and/or others wrong. The scientist, knowing that, or having the faith that, absolutely every hypothesis possible could be wrong - bends over backwards to prove each hypothesis false.

There are scientists still today doing their damnedest to prove wrong the current view that all masses, great or small, fall through a gravitational field at precisely the same speed when, especially, in a vacuum. As ludicrous as the above particular example seems - the scientific method is founded on a position of faith that there is always a chance that each and every scientific hypothesis and even every seemingly long established theory can yet be proved wrong.

Consider propositional logic, the very foundation of science and philosophy. We analyse the four possible outcomes and their implications of a simple proposition “If it is raining the roads will be wet”.

If it is raining the roads will be wet.

1.It is raining therefore the roads will be wet – Good argument – Affirming the antecedent.

2.It is not raining therefore the roads will not be wet – Bad argument – It might have just recently stopped raining – Denying the antecedent.

3.The roads are wet therefore it is raining – Bad argument – It might have just recently stopped raining – Affirming the consequent.

4.The roads are not wet therefore it is not raining – Good argument and in fact the major pillar of the scientific and philosophical systems of method – Denying the consequent.

Because all scientific hypotheses and theories, the minor pillar of science, are in fact blatant logical fallacies of the 3rd type above, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the major and solid pillar of science has to be the logically valid mode of the 4th type above, that of denying the consequent which is the pursuance of disproof.

In the same way that just because the roads are wet it does not mean it is raining it will be that just because the mote of smoke did diffuse the air is anyway not necessarily comprised of randomly moving particles. It could be radiation that causes the molecules to diffuse and thus radiation would have to be eliminated.

In the same way that science is the system of methods devised and employed relentlessly to refute propositions pertaining to empirical matters of facts philosophy is the system of devised and employed methods in pursuance of disproving propositions of a more abstract nature which lie between matters of empirical facts and opinions that border on the realm of matters of taste.

It is as Socrates, Aristotle and Epicurus argued, between 400BC and 200BC, progress in knowledge (justified true beliefs) comes about not by offering up propositions about the world or the human condition but rather by a systematic approach of discovering what is wrong with every such proposition by the very slow process of eliminating what might be right from what is certainly wrong subjecting every humanly possible proposition offered to the rigors of fervent methodical attempts of refutation.

Scientists and Philosophers are driven by faith – faith that they could yet discover to be false even those propositions assumed by other scientists and layman alike to be most certain. Philosophers even try to prove that we don’t exist or that if we do then we exist in a world somewhat similar to that portrayed by the Matrix movie sequel.

A philosopher lives off of faith - faith in a view that if only she had the time she could prove that everything you say is either false or simply meaningless and so long as she cannot demonstrate something you say to be false or meaningless she is willing to let fly, for the time being, your so far un-refuted propositions.

JS Mills said "We all know that some of our opinions are false, which they are we do not know, for if we did - they would not be our opinions".

Never give up the chance that you are wrong - we must remain faithful to the logically valid view held by scientists and philosophers that we are fallible and could always be wrong even about the seemingly most certain of propositions but especially about those matters for which we do not even have a single shred of evidence.

There are many truths not yet known and there are many beliefs not yet known to be false. The sorting is done through the process of philosophising.

In the Theaetetus, 380BC, Socrates describes or defines quite plainly what philosophy is. He starts by explaining that his mother is a midwife. He explains that midwifes in Athens are barren, that one of the qualifications for being a midwife is that they can no longer bare children themselves. He compares his philosophising to midwifery. He goes on then to say…

“Well, my midwifery has all the standard features, except that I practice it on men instead of woman, and supervise the labour of their minds, not their bodies. And the most important aspect of my skill is the ability to apply every conceivable test to see whether the young man's mental offspring is illusory and false or viable and true. But I have this feature in common with midwives – I myself am barren of wisdom. The criticism that is often made of me – that it is lack of wisdom that makes me ask others questions, but say nothing positive myself – is perfectly true”.

Socrates's mother was a midwife and his father a stone mason.

A stone mason making, say, a bust, would reveal the truth by eliminating what is not the truth. He chips away at the falsities so as to see more clearly the truth. In this sense, we discover what is right by eliminating what is wrong.

This is different from the process of troubleshooting a system of which we know how it is built to run where because of this knowledge it is more effective to find what is wrong by eliminating what is right. But the opposite must be when we are working with unknowns or uncertainties.

More than anything else philosophy points out what is wrong with a certain path. It might not offer an alternative path in its place. But at least those previously on the first path no longer need to waste any time venturing down there. They are free to look elsewhere for a more fruitful quest.

Our western enlightenment principles are founded upon the problem of induction put forward by an atheist called Sextus Epiricus circa 200AD. This problem, during the reformation, was known as the problem of the criterion.

We can never be as certain about what is right as we can about what is wrong. So the quest to discover what is right will have to be a process of making more distinct the candidates for right by eliminating what is wrong.

If we can never be as certain about what is right as we can about what is wrong then we must pursue a system of negative freedoms rather than positive freedoms. That would fit right in with the principle of superiority of falsification over verification, JS Mill over JJ Rousseau, and why the many ancient commandments, including the Egyptian commandments from which the Ten Commandments came, are all negative commandments rather than positive - explaining why they evolved to not be positive freedoms - so to speak.

All again thoughts founded on Sextus Empiricus's problem of induction and thus the problem of the criterion.

Values, such as the enlightenment principles of autonomy, universality and tolerance (no man imposes his belief on any other man - one is therefore intolerant when one thinks he knows the only way that all others should follow) are arrived at from arguments starting with the principle of "the problem of the criterion".

The problem of the criterion arises when we have to choose between two or more different or contrary beliefs that each claim to be the only truth - how do we decide between them. What is it in them we should look for as an indicator of its being the one only truth? That unfortunately is to ask for the very faculty needed to decide between them. Thus the answer cannot lie in either of the two options but in the enquirer him or her self. So we come to realise our values are to be arrived at by argument and evidence and certainly not tradition and custom which anyway generally tend to have been derived out of infection by cognitive illusions.

Many of our beliefs can be inconsistent on account of some or other cognitive illusion. Optical illusions are easy enough to appreciate, two lines, that are in fact parallel but cleverly made to look like they bow or diverge, can be checked with a ruler. But cognitive illusions have to be dug out with philosophising. Many of the common cognitive illusions philosophy is aware of are called fallacies.

Modern philosophy and western enlightenment continue to progress riding upon Socrates's principle of verification (midwifery) and falsification (Stone Masonry).

Witches and Masons?

But most important of all is that the very foundation upon which our western enlightenment principles are built is the problem of induction aka the problem of the criterion. Civil freedom is founded on no other principle more basic than the problem of the criterion brought to us from the ancient Greeks.

Sextus Empiricus in 200AD quoted Pyrrho of about 300BC thus:

When they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of induction, they will effect this by a review of either all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars are infinite and indefinite

Later David Hume improved on this by introducing the western world to the problem of induction:

Those who claim for themselves to judge the truth are bound to possess a criterion of truth. This criterion, then, either is without a judge's approval or has been approved. But if it is without approval, whence comes it that it is truthworthy? For no matter of dispute is to be trusted without judging. And, if it has been approved, that which approves it, in turn, either has been approved or has not been approved, and so on ad infinitum.

In science we have laws such as all bodies continue to move at a constant velocity unless acted on by a force. In philosophy we have laws like the law of non contradiction - something cannot both be and not be at the same time.

As in science where there are many laws - in philosophy too there are many laws.

If a question can be answered according to the MKS Theta system being Meters, kg's and Seconds with temperature in Degrees Kelvin then the answer comes from the employment of a tape measure, a weigh scale and a stop watch with a thermometer.

But if the question is something like "Does anyone have a right to their own opinion?" then because this cannot be answered with the use of any of the previous 4 instruments it has instead to be answered in the abstract according to the laws of philosophical logic. Does freedom bring happinesss? Does happines even matter? These are philosophical questions that are very important in the battles between cultures but they can only be answered by the application of philosophy. Thus one could argue that philosophy is prior to science - science was borne out of philosophy - it was called natural philosophy in Newtons time. But philosophy is surely far more important.

Philosophy is also the only cure for faulty thinking. The reason why more than 80% of any layman's thoughts are outright false is because layman are ignorant of philosophy. And when everyone shares the same 80% false beliefs we have a culture that is just a shared psychosis.

Philosophy is the only cure to psychosis. The most widely used and successful type of mental therapy is CBT or Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - it is a system of teaching people to apply philosophy to their lives.