8 Answers

  1. The word “science” is ambiguous. It does not have any “true correct meaning”, but there are various suggestions on what convention to establish about the meaning of this word.

    You can talk about science as a certain social institution, an academic discipline. And then philosophy is a science.

    You can talk about science as something where hypotheses are put forward and tested experimentally. And then philosophy is not a science.

    You can throw in another five options.

    For me personally, the most convincing argument seems to be that the question of what science should be, the question of the scientific method, is answered by the methodology of science. This discipline is traditionally found within philosophy. And if we say that philosophy is a science, then it turns out that it determines from within itself what it should be, and I do not accept such arguments in the spirit of “in my part I decide who is a Jew.”

    Therefore, I prefer not to consider philosophy as a science, in order to take the problem of the demarcation of science beyond science.

  2. SCIENCE – any correct productive knowledge-philosophy is such knowledge.

    There is a large well-known list of problems that philosophy can and should solve for the successful development of all sciences.

  3. Many philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. It is a science by one of the definitions, but there are many definitions that call philosophy not a science, but a worldview, spiritual activity, and much more.

  4. No. Although there are different points of view (the issue is debatable). Here is my position.

    So, philosophy is an independent cultural form, along with science, religion, esotericism, and art. The task of philosophy is to practice a special state that allows you to see what is really there (a state of intense consciousness).

    And in the arsenal of philosophy there are other non-research tools and opportunities for practicing the state of consciousness.

    And more. Philosophy deals with the foundations of science. And the foundations of science are different from science itself. These foundations are metaphysical (ontological, existential).

    Most often, philosophy is called the science of ” the most general laws of nature, society, and thought.”

  5. In my humble opinion, philosophy is not a science, but a stage of knowledge that precedes science. Religion precedes philosophy, and technology follows science.

    Read more here.


  6. No understanding-philosophy and science. Philosophy and science repeat each other, as do religions and art. There is nothing unambiguous in the world, read, philosophy is science, and vice versa.

  7. There are a number of prominent philosophers (Kant, Fichte…) who recognize that philosophy has not yet been able to reach the level of a scientific system. But at the same time, all of them do not deny that it (yet) must become it.

    But again, the question is: how to achieve that? …

    Of course, at the same time, we (mentally) tend to turn to the natural sciences in which there is a system, and they are a model of really science. And we would like to see about the same thing in philosophy. But unfortunately, this system cannot be mechanically transferred to philosophy in any way – it is different, and it is simply impossible to “work” in it. At least because the field of subject research in it is larger and broader than in these sciences. Moreover, the field itself is not defined (and in many ways), i.e. the subject of research – what it is, what kind of nature, etc.

    In a word, the scientific thought of scientists (and philosophers) has not yet been able to determine all this in essence…

  8. Philosophy is not a science. In general, as a student of philosophy, I am terribly annoyed by such questions. It's like asking if a tree is a flower. Science and philosophy are two different ways of knowing the world, but they are connected in a certain way. Philosophy, as the Greek thinkers used to say, is the art of asking the question ” what is?”. The art of asking questions and thinking about them. A scientific discipline as such cannot be born out of nothing, and philosophy forms the basis, some axiomative theses, from which a scientific discipline emerges. Have you ever used Fotoshop before? Before you can get a full-fledged image in jpg format, you need to create it in a different format that is embedded in the program itself (I don't remember what excuse moi is called), in which you overlay layers, draw, and create shapes. In this illustration, the finished image is a scientific discipline, and the edited image in adobe format is a philosophical discipline. Within the framework of philosophy there are philosophical disciplines (such as ontology, epistemology, logic, ethics, aesthetics), within the framework of science there are their own disciplines (I hope your education is enough to list them). Some disciplines remain within the framework of philosophy, some flow into the scientific sphere, sometimes it happens that philosophical and scientific disciplines are intertwined, forming such bizarre creations as bioethics. Most of the existing scientific disciplines were once philosophical in the past, and the genesis of scientific disciplines from philosophical ones is still taking place today. Not so long ago, political science emerged from political philosophy, economics emerged from economic philosophy in the 19th century, and psychology emerged at the beginning of the 20th century. Gradually, religious studies and cultural studies are moving into the field of science. In the future, perhaps cybernetics will become an independent scientific discipline. And this will continue to happen (this is a remark to those who believe that philosophy is extinct).
    In general, sorry for the verbosity. Here is my main thesis, if you are lost: philosophy and science are two different paradigms, which, nevertheless, are in constant dynamic interaction. For this I take my leave.

Leave a Reply

12 Answers

  1. First of all, this question has already been asked many times on the site.

    The question of whether philosophy is a science is debatable. It is controversial because there are elements in philosophy that are scientific, and there are elements that are not scientific.

    The most obvious scientific aspect of philosophy is logic and argumentation theory. Logic, developed in its classical form by Aristotle and subsequently refined by generations of philosophers up to the present day, is the basis of both philosophy and science in general. In this sense, philosophy and science are brought together by the reliance on rationality: both use logic as a foundation. The history of philosophy as a branch of philosophy can also be considered a science in the same sense that we consider history to be a science.

    On the other hand, not all philosophical problems can be solved by scientific means. Often, philosophy, including the philosophy of science, begins where the boundaries of a particular discipline end. In this sense, philosophy usually refers to questions about the foundations of science or to questions about its borderline, new areas. For example, modern philosophers try to raise such questions as the paradoxes of time travel or the probability that the world is a simulation, and try to think about how we can approach these problems in general.

    Finally, there are a number of problems that, as far as we can tell, are basically unsolvable by scientific means. These are questions of ethics, values, etc. Philosophy also does not provide answers to them, but it provides a means for rational discussion, cutting off the worst options and gradually improving our answers. Thanks to this, progress is made both in philosophy and in society, because one is inextricably linked with the other.

    In summary, philosophy can be called a science only in the broadest sense of the word “science” – as a search for knowledge based on rationality. But at the same time, the nature of philosophical questions, how philosophy approaches them, and what results it seeks to obtain differ significantly from specific scientific disciplines. In this sense, philosophy goes far beyond what is usually called science, although it is closely related to it: scientists often turn to philosophical questions and find themselves in the space of philosophy, and philosophers often rely on scientific knowledge in their arguments.

  2. Yes, philosophy is a science.

    It is important to understand that a philosopher-thinker must have very strict, clear and precise thinking. You can put him on a par with a mathematical scientist.

    philosophy as a science requires precise thinking.

    When dealing with complex and abstract concepts, philosophy cannot be careless, otherwise it will become impossible to simply reproduce the consistent course of thinking – contradictory results may appear on the same grounds.

    Therefore, philosophy is very strict about definitions, checking every word and all the meanings that stand behind it.

    I think, therefore I exist. (c) Cogito ergo sum

    Appreciate the beauty, power, and completeness of your utterance.

    • Beautiful – everything superfluous is thrown out;
    • Strongly – every word is filled with meaning;
    • Complete-universal and gives a clear answer even in a hypothetical situation, if you find yourself in the afterlife in the form of a lost soul))).

    On this occasion, there is another statement by R. Descartes, a French mathematician and philosopher:

    People would get rid of “half their troubles” if they “could agree on” the meaning of words.

    The point is that everyone understands words in their own way, which is why it is impossible to accurately convey the meaning in communication, and misunderstandings inevitably arise, which only grows with the number of participants. It's hard to argue with him, because the “damaged phone” effect is no secret. In philosophy, a damaged phone number is unacceptable and, accordingly, the problem is solved.

    I should add that this approach is typical of Western philosophical thought, and it is important to understand that it is not the only one in the world and cannot monopolize the right to truth. At the moment, the Western and eastern civilizational approaches have entered into an unprecedented direct struggle, the results of which will vitally determine the winner for many centuries to come. Russia combines both approaches, and also has a significant political weight, which is why our Homeland is unique.

    I did not mention mathematics and philosophy for nothing, and I also mentioned Descartes, because I must answer the question: “is philosophy a science?”

    If mathematics is a science, then philosophy is also a science.

    Both exist in the realm of pure knowledge. The provisions of both can not always be used in practice. Both theories are proved speculatively, without physical evidence. In both cases, there is no scientific method – the method of conducting a scientific experiment. In both cases, the thought process develops systematically. These are not all complete similarities between the two sciences. But there is only one difference, which is that:

    • mathematics uses quantitative abstract categories;
    • philosophy uses qualitative abstract categories.

    In addition, our civilization is built on philosophical principles. For example, Zh-Zh. Rousseau did not conclude that “everyone is born free” on their own. He drew on philosophical sources and ideas of natural law. In any modern idea, state structure, political current, approaches and views, one can see the philosophical roots of past thinkers. Moreover, the socio-political system followed philosophical thought. While in theology (philosophy) there was an idea of the God-chosen king/tsar, there was a monarchy. As philosophy matured, monarchies were overthrown. Unlike statistics and sociology, philosophy is free and completely independent of any political authority. In fact, philosophy indirectly shaped the general way of life on the planet.

    However, even the right idea can be distorted if politicians take up the task instead of scientists and philosophers. In 1947, the UN created the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The quality and depth of the universal values contained in this declaration are already clearly visible. I hope that philosophers will still give an assessment of these values, this greedy attempt to cram in what is not stuffed, superficially concentrate some good, to the detriment of the deep meanings of our existence.

    Thus, although its main issues lie beyond the public benefit, philosophy has consistently made a serious systemic civilizational contribution to science and society. In this regard, there is no need to question the scientific nature of philosophy. None of the sciences is hierarchically qualified to define philosophy as a science or pseudoscience. But there are always individual opinions that are justified to varying degrees.

    However, in my opinion, the more deeply a person is familiar with philosophy, the less he can have doubts about its scientific nature and the more convinced that philosophy is a pure science based on higher mental activity.

    with respect,

  3. Today, every philosopher has his own understanding of it. In general, it is possible to distinguish four versions of its interpretation: pre-science, science, post-science and super-science. The prevailing version is the latter, and the true version is the latter: philosophy is science. One of the reasons for pluralism in understanding philosophy as a non-science is the understanding of science. It is recognized as the activity of researchers who develop science, and not the multitude of ideas and knowledge on the basis of which individuals and society as a whole live.

    The answer to the question depends on understanding, first of all, the essence of science and its representatives should determine the essence of science. They have many true definitions of it, but due to a number of factors, it is not their thoughts that are generally accepted. And the reason for this is that they themselves do not adequately comprehend their own activities, including its fundamental attribute. True understanding of science is possible only on the basis of its research as a cognitive phenomenon, and this requires the science of science (metascience). And its relevance was specifically emphasized by Fichte. Such a science of science, to a certain extent, was philosophy. And philosophers have done a lot. Identifying and summarizing their thoughts allows us to develop its concept as a science about science. It is based on a cumulative series: reflection-information-ideas-ideal-knowledge-science-post-science. In this case, 3-5 of its preshook elements. Science is the a priori knowledge that ancestors teach their descendants. From this point of view, philosophy is also a natural science, since each of its subjects does not invent everything himself, but assimilates the ideas of their ancestors. But philosophers believe that science is not an attribute of society, but arose in the 17th century as professional researchers, experimenters. At the same time, they recognize that before it, the function of knowledge was performed by philosophy, and when science emerged as empirical research, the function of philosophy is to generalize the results of science by developing general theories of the universe. Most consistently, Hegel tried to turn this idea into reality, and Engels stated his works as an argument for the impossibility of such a philosophy. General theories should be developed by representatives of the relevant sciences.

    There is also such an approach – philosophy is recognized as a more developed form of knowledge than science. At the same time, this possibility arises from birth in individual individuals and it is not explicable. They recognize both the degeneration of philosophy and the emergence of post-philosophy.

  4. No. This is an independent form of culture. There are no research procedures used here, but other ways of philosophical work are used: outlining any situation using symbolic language in a special conversation (about this on my Zen channel “Socratic Conversations”).

  5. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant, considering himself a philosopher, at the same time gives a not very high assessment of the state of modern (him) philosophy. He admits that it is essentially only “only the idea of a possible science… which we are trying to approach in various ways.” Other well – known philosophers, such as Fichte and Husserl, said the same thing in essence (“philosophy is an imperfect science, I simply say that it is not yet a science at all, that it has not yet begun as a science”).

    And in the following centuries, it could not become one. Which in principle, again, is not denied by the philosophers themselves. But, apparently, the philosophers themselves should not be blamed for this, since the reasons for this (as practice and experience related to it show) are not so much in the philosophers themselves, but in something else that is independent of them.

    Apparently, the historical time, with all its favorable conditions and factors, has not yet arrived, which can contribute to its truly scientific development.

  6. In my humble opinion, philosophy is a stage of knowledge of the world around humanity, preceding science. And each science separately.

    Read more here.


  7. This is not yet a science – the history of philosophy is not an improvement and development of initial propositions (as in the sciences), but a struggle of various doctrines with each other. Marxism tried to make it a science, but something went wrong… However, what is science-this is just from the field of philosophy)).

  8. Philosophy is not a science, but something much higher than science. What is science? This is something that can be studied, that is, reality and it is necessary to explain it, make experiments and prove that it has properties, etc. Philosophy does not study, but explains without studying and without knowledge, but on the basis of intuition, not trusting the senses. Science – – – is knowledge, philosophy – – – is wisdom!!! With respect.

  9. Philosophy is a science. The science of cognition and thinking.

    There is a theory ( several fundamental theories), there are basic concepts and definitions, and there is a method.

    There are many applied sciences that are based on philosophy, or are somehow adjacent to them:

    history, psychology, sociology, social philosophy, theosophy and theology, other sciences and applied disciplines.

    In addition, philosophy evolves as human society evolves, giving rise to new theories and methods, and expanding research areas.

    Having all the necessary features and attributes of a science, philosophy is the oldest of the sciences.

  10. A controversial issue. Philosophical knowledge consists of various, often even opposite, currents. Some of them are indistinguishable from science, are fully guided by its standards and meet all the criteria of scientific character. Such, for example, is the philosophy of logical positivism. And others (religious philosophy, philosophy of life, existentialism, etc.) believe that philosophy is a different phenomenon from science both in its subject matter and in its methods. Summing up the numerous disputes on this topic, I will express my point of view: the concepts of” philosophy “and” science ” are in a logical relationship of intersection, i.e., they are connected with each other. their volumes partially coincide. Then all philosophical teachings can be divided into two groups: scientific and extra-scientific. And aggregate philosophical knowledge can be characterized as both scientific and extra-scientific. And there is no contradiction in this: if a system consists of many heterogeneous elements, then it cannot be characterized only by the properties of one of the components.

  11. It is a collection of people's opinions about the world. Opinions can be based on science, religion, everyday experience, or other people's opinions. So the opinions of some philosophers are closer to the truth, while others are further from it

  12. Philosophy is the intellectual garbage of evolution.
    Sapiens does a lot of different things in his life. For example, Sapiens is improving ways to get carrots. He needs carrots in order to live and not die prematurely. Carrots are nice and healthy.
    Sapiens is engaged in organizing its own society. He organizes other sapiens into groups with an internal hierarchy and division of labor in order to jointly achieve, for example, the production of automobiles. The Toyota car is useful and pleasant to use.
    Sapiens self-organize into large populations, such as states. States are useful because they assign territory, resources to live in, and resources to protect their territory from other sapiens groups. It is pleasant and useful to live in a strong and well-organized state.
    Sapiens studies nature, of which it is a part. Such a study leads to very useful consequences: electricity, medicine, fertilizers, high-speed information exchange-the Internet…
    Sapiens often and willingly arrange mutual extermination through wars. The result of this process is the redistribution of territory between groups of sapiens, the culling of the weaker part of the population in favor of the stronger one. From the point of view of evolution, this is a useful process, since it strains the intellectual and physical capabilities of sapiens and thereby improves them. Evolution knows no other mechanisms for stimulating living beings to develop other than creating difficulties in the form of natural disasters or creating mutual tension. To transform the structure of society, sapiens arranges revolutions.
    And so on.
    Everything that sapiens achieves in his business, he achieves through trial and error. Unsuccessful solutions are rejected, successful ones (attention!) they are used en masse and make life easier and more stable.
    However, the sapiens brain is such that it opposes imitation of any useful activity. Imitation is good because positive emotions in the sapiens brain are produced in the least expensive way, sapiens simply saves energy.
    Every useful activity of sapiens has its imitation-a game. Imitation of eternal, endless and trouble – free life-religion. Imitation of war is a sport. Imitation of nature-painting and music. Imitation of someone else's life-theater and toys in the computer. Imitation of science (intellectual activity) – philosophy, empty and meaningless nonsense. Imitation of joy – alcohol (if you still manage to imitate it, otherwise the opposite might happen).
    Imitation is characterized by the fact that the external form of the case is observed, but no socially useful result is found.
    Philosophy has all the outward signs of intellectual activity. For example, the reasoning of philosophers can be so confusing that it is impossible for an untrained sapiens to understand them. Sapiens, faced with the incomprehensible, comes to amazement.
    The reasoning of science leads to practical results. It is for this purpose that the society is willing to keep people of science and highly values them. Philosophy has never produced any useful result for society anywhere. People don't use philosophers ' rationalisms in their lives. And never used it. States, relations in societies, the production of things, money (the mechanism of exchange) – all this appeared by practical trial and error.
    Intelligence has been developed by evolution to most effectively achieve the goals of all living things: food, reproduction, dominance, security, novelty, and energy conservation. If intellectual activity does not achieve these useful goals, it is an imitation of such activity.

    Philosophy is the intellectual garbage of evolution. An exemplary example of such garbage is the Science of Hegel's Logic.
    “Pitiful sight….”

Leave a Reply