Originally posted by kyngj
…Science is a method. Generate Hypothesis -> Design Experiment -> Test -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one.
Philosophy is not science!
Science is a method. Generate Hypothesis -> Design Experiment -> Test -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one.
Philosophy is not amenable to this method. Logic is not science but rather a mode of thought that enables us to think rationally about a particular topic. One may use logic to arrive at hypotheses, but logic ...[text shortened]... cience either.
Philosophy, by its very nature, does not fit the narrow definition of science.
Why can’t each of those stages be applied to scientific
Generate a philosophical hypothesis -> design a thought experiment -> test the hypothesis by performing the thought experiment -> Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one depending on the result of the test.
-after all, this is what can be done in the science of mathematics and, just like in the science of mathematics, the experiment doesn’t have to be a physical one.
But here is a real-life example of that in scientific
Form the philosophical hypothesis that all mathematical truths can be defined using purely none mathematical truths -> design a thought experiment simply consisting of trying to define all mathematical truths using purely none mathematical truths -> test the hypothesis by attempting to carry out this thought experiment ->Generate new hypothesis or accept the first one depending on the result of the test -in this case the test was positive thus accept the hypothesis.
These stages was actually done by Bertrand Russell to create his Principia Mathematica which is considered to be part of a branch of scientific philosophy called mathematical philosophy.
Of course, this cannot be applied to moral
philosophy because although you can always generate a ‘moral’ hypothesis, there would be no experiment nor observation that could possibly either prove or disprove it thus moral
philosophy can never be a part of science.