16 Answers

  1. What kind of way is it to see someone's insidious machinations everywhere?

    To understand whether philosophy is a science, you need to define what science is. But with this in philosophy, it is a philosophical question-what is considered a science. Since this is a philosophical question, there can be no definitively correct answer to it, there can only be more or less justified positions, the final choice between which is more a matter of taste than mind.

    The position that science is defined in such a way that philosophy is a science has some justification. The position that science is defined in such a way that philosophy is not science also has some justification. Personally, I prefer the second point of view, and the key arguments in its favor are the following::

    • If we define science in such a way that philosophy is a science, then it is more correct not to include philosophy in the number of sciences, but to place the sciences inside philosophy. I am for the richness of the conceptual apparatus, I am closer to the situation when philosophy is in itself, and science is in itself.
    • If we define science in such a way that philosophy is science, then it turns out that science decides within itself what is science and what is not science. I prefer the situation when only philosophy has such autonomy, and when we are engaged in the demarcation of science and non-science, we are not engaged in science at this moment.
    • If we define science in such a way that philosophy is a science, then it will be a definition that is more tied to the social structure than to the method and product of activity. Both in science and in philosophy there are schools, traditions of consistency in reasoning and argumentation, the requirement for the latter – usually on these criteria, philosophy is classified as a science. But it seems to me that, first of all, these criteria are rather external, superficial, and secondly, religion can also turn out to be a science, since in some cases it is difficult to separate from philosophy – just by the same criteria. I am still ready to argue about whether Plato's ontology is part of science, but I am afraid that almost no one is ready to argue about whether Buddhism or Confucianism can also be classified as a science. I am closer to distinguishing science by method and product of activity – and I am not ready to call the methods of philosophy scientific, and I am not ready to call the knowledge produced by philosophy scientific.

    None of the above arguments are conclusive, but they only demonstrate what lies behind the argument about whether philosophy belongs to science and why people can choose the position that philosophy is not science. No, not because they are stupid or want to deceive anyone.

    To think that there is an insidious intent here is a dangerous defect of thinking for sanity. However, this defect – to see everything as a conspiracy – has already captured many minds, like an epidemic. Isn't that paranoid?

  2. This is the opinion of scientists, that is, people who call science only the form of knowledge of the world that has been formed in the last four hundred years. This approach is based on the point of view that the subject of research should be sensually perceived, and the method, respectively, objective. From this point of view, philosophy is certainly not a science. Today, this view prevails in science and in society. Thus, philosophy, of course, cannot be a science, and different Platons and Hegels are not scientists. But I can't get over it. Therefore, I consider science to be a form of cognition in which everyday perceptions are rationalized. For example, people notice that it is better not to eat some products that “lie idle for a long time”. Someone stops there. Others wonder why this is happening. And there is a scientific study. But, in turn, there are people who notice that there are contradictions in such studies. Often these contradictions arise due to the fact that people understand the same words differently. And some of the scientists are starting to think about how to get rid of these contradictions. It sometimes seems to me that if you think of science as a huge factory for the production of new knowledge, then philosophers in this factory are engaged in making tools for other scientists. These tools are called “concepts”and ” categories”. Of course, as in any factory, such products of philosophers can be better or worse. Or very bad – marriage. It is with this understanding that philosophers fall into the category of representatives of science. And all sorts of Platons and Hegels are scientists. So choose which point of view is closest to you.

  3. Philosophy, like all science, tries to show things that are not visible to man with the help of things that are visible to man. Philosophy explained the world in general terms and showed its justice.

  4. Because philosophy is still not a science. This does not mean that philosophy is no good and we should abandon it, but rather that philosophy has created science as we know it and is developing it (see Popper's criteria for falsifiability ). I personally consider philosophy to be the mother of science, which guides science. Without a philosophical apparatus, science is very difficult.

  5. Yes, I personally believe that philosophy cannot be a science because it does not obey any canons or rules. It's not a science, just because it can't be studied like life itself. You can imagine that life is a science. If so, please teach life as a science. This is so absurd that there is nothing to compare it with. You can study the works of philosophers if you think that it is possible. I do not believe that it is possible, to get acquainted yes to study no, it is impossible. With respect.

  6. Answer from the position of Psychology:

    People (out of boredom) play games all the time.

    Philosophy, by the way, also arose from the desire of the ancient Greeks to play with their minds on the shore of a calm sea on a warm autumn evening.

    And among people there are fans of playing the role of the Aggressor and much more people who like to play the role of the Rescuer.

    When such an Aggressor is bored, he goes to the Internet and tries to start a discussion about … about anything. At least about the philosophy that annoys him, because it is not necessary in his life.

    And if the request is correctly made, then he very quickly finds Rescuers and begins to fill the hole in his time with this game.

    It happens that the opposite is true – the Rescuer starts such a dispute in search of”justice”.

    But from the point of view of Psychology, very often the Rescuer quickly turns into the role of the Aggressor, trying to condemn and punish other Aggressors, who in such a game also transform into the role of the Victim, if there are many more Rescuers.

    So the answer is simple: People spend all their free time playing games. As Eric Byrne said. (And he knew what he was saying))

  7. Philosophy is a science, so just like in any other scientific activity, there are characters in philosophy who were called philosophers by misunderstanding.

    Science is a field of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality.

    Philosophy is a love of wisdom; wisdom is “a property of the human mind characterized by the degree of mastering knowledge, the ability to apply knowledge competently, a large, deep mind based on life experience, in philosophy — one of the measures of the degree of knowledge of the surrounding world, discussed, as a rule, in the context of striving to deepen this knowledge as a specific property of human intelligence.” That is, philosophy is the love of knowing the surrounding reality, and it is already clear from this that philosophy becomes a science when the philosopher's thoughts do not differ from the processes that occur in reality, around, in the Universe.

    Modern physics and astronomy, for example, deny the scientific nature of philosophy, eventually sliding in knowledge about the universe to the possibility of its appearance from nothing, which is not much different from what religion says about its beginning. Philosophy as a science, on the other hand, through reflection based on available experimental data, has come to the conclusion that the universe has never had and cannot have a beginning, because movement arises from a push that can only be transmitted from body to body. Philosophy is also a science because in a person's life almost every action he performs after a certain process of thinking, which in itself speaks of the importance of the ability to think correctly.

    Modern scientists ' disregard for philosophy is based on a certain position of scientists in society, who invent non-existent things and make a good living from it, think of Stephen Hawking.

  8. Philosophy is the source of all sciences. Therefore, if within the framework of philosophy an area of consistent ideas about reality and methods of their research begins to form, then with their favorable development, such an area is separated from philosophy and becomes an independent science. This allows the organizers of the new science to proudly declare this. This is indeed an epochal event. But this does not detract from the importance of philosophy as an independent field of activity. I would even say, on the contrary, it exalts.

  9. Strictly speaking, attributing something to science or non – science is a matter of personal taste. Rutherford, as we know, considered only physics as a science, considering everything else “stamp collecting”.
    The trouble begins when the opinion begins to persistently and aggressively impose itself on others.
    So do those who want to gain cheap credibility in the field of politics, propaganda, pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy. As a rule, such opinions are empty and do not contain practical value. They are dangerous, because being simple and categorical, they are easily picked up by the crowd. And they are harmful, as they inhibit development.
    I remember that genetics was also not a science, but cybernetics, and even “the corrupt girl of imperialism”.

  10. Science is based on a fundamentally
    possible proof of statements, even if it is difficult to reproduce. Philosophy is a game of Reason , based on opinions and logic.

  11. This is probably done by those who question the importance of chastity in the system of scientific knowledge with goals of various nature: from purely personal motives to universal proportions. Having reduced one of the traditional academic disciplines, can we talk about the safety of the academy itself?

  12. What is science ? this is the area of knowledge that can be tested by experience. for example , if you put a jar of jam on the edge of the table, it will fall off sooner or later . this knowledge can be tested , so it is scientific knowledge .

    but for example, whether God exists or not is not scientific knowledge , that is, we cannot prove His existence or non-existence. what does philosophy and part of psychology do ? approximately such questions that cannot be proven by experience. Therefore, PHILOSOPHY IS NOT A SCIENCE

  13. the goal of philosophy is to make people's lives better … abandoning the philosophy of putting the betterment of people's lives at risk. deliberate persecution of philosophy, curtailment of its teaching, reduction of funding – this is a deliberate obstacle to improving life.

    that's all.. it's simple))

    arguments about the unscientific nature of philosophy are just an attempt to get rid of the philosophical assessment of what is being done in the framework of other sciences .. this is an attempt to limit the humanistic qualification for the products of ” progress “and scientific” achievements”..

    since the vast majority of modern research is conducted not for the sake of improving life, but for the sake of increasing profits, the pressure of philosophical inconsistency must be eliminated by eliminating philosophy itself in its original purpose.

    in our research institute, the humanistic department was eliminated in 2008, and it also included the laboratory of general philosophy. the department gave an expert assessment of most of the projects that were opened. the elimination took place with the wording: “we can no longer take into account your opinion on areas that are too important for the institute's funding”

  14. These are all atheists, and they always don't want to use their beliefs, including philosophical ones.

    And how simply they argue after all – if philosophy is equal to Science, then it turns out to be superfluous, a tautological concept, is not needed.

    And if it is not equal to Science, then it is even more unnecessary.

  15. Who ever declared philosophy not a science? Even if cooking is also a science. There are different” types ” of sciences, and it is rather silly to say otherwise. Here everything depends on the point of view and literacy regarding the topic:

    A person does not understand the concept of science and perceives only natural sciences.�

    Or he is also “a typical leftist whose opinion is imbued with a cruel bureaucratic society that popularizes the cult of contempt for humanitarians.”�

  16. In my opinion, philosophy is not a science. I would call it a tool of science, since it does not study anything specific. Philosophers only build theories, schemes, and relationships. I do not know who is trying to announce what, but why is it?

Leave a Reply