Forums → WEPR → Science without philosophy is lame, philosophy without science is blind

Science is great for empirical things that we can measure, and the scientific method can help us understand how most things work. Philosophy is what we use when we have no hope of measuring or observing something, or in the field of psychology, because that is largely due to the non-empirical process of human thought.

More broadly, I'd suggest that if something can be defined as, or extrapolated back to, applied mathematics, it's science. If not, it's philosophy.

I would rather agree with the 'philosophy' version of the quote. Science doesn't need religion, it does rely on philosophy however. I didn't always think much of philosophy, but I got to realize that the scientific process works hand in hand with philosophic ideas.

Coincidentally, I have read an interesting blogpost about this topic not long ago. It is based on a post by physicist Sean Carroll, and the author eventually argues that Philosophy begins where physics ends, and physics begins where philosophy ends. I recommend reading it.

I think the quote isn't as misused as you seem to believe it is. Einstein was clearly pointing toward the fact that scientific pursuit and faith based beliefs are not mutually exclusive concepts, and even depend on each other to truly reach their potential. This is a historically supported concept as many of the greatest scientific advancements throughout history were strongly tied to religion. Likewise, the times when religious institutions feared how scientific pursuit would affect their control of the people led to many of the darkest acts in human history.

As for your proposed alteration, I think you were only really looking to remove the concept of religion from the quote and not actually looking at the meaning behind what Einstein was saying. Philosophy is a vast concept that encompasses a great many different fields. Philosophy and science already go hand in hand in many areas of study and are even interchangeable in many ways. "Faith" might be a moderately more efficient word for the phrase but not so much as to render the statement ineffectual if you use "religion" instead.

I can't remember if it was in that new Cosmos series or just some youtube video I watched, but I recall Neil Degrasse Tyson talking about an early childhood moment where he was given some binoculars and looked up at the stars. This experience inspired him and helped pave the way to what he later became. I think it's that same sense of wonder that Tyson experienced looking at the stars through binoculars that Einsteins is talking about here. Many people have felt that sense through religion. But I would contest that it's not faith and religion so much as asking and pondering the questions that such a feeling of wonder comes from. To ask questions and ponder on the possibilities of those questions is philosophy in it's most fundamental form.

I could argue with you, but why bother when Einstein already took care of it.

To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.

Also, to ask question and ponder the possibilities of those questions is the beginning steps of the scientific method as well as the nature of philosophy. Like I said, philosophy and science are often interchangeable.

philosophy and science are often interchangeable.

That is essentially true, but we must be specific.

Philosophy is the search for truth through reasoning rather than empiricism.

Science is the derivation of knowledge through the method of hypotheses, experimentation, and conclusion.

The defining difference is that in science, the experiment is empirical, whereas in philosophy it usually isn't.

Thus, I would define Science as the Philosophy of the empirical.

Philosophy is applied maths, specifically algebra.

Oh, and Einstein was wrong. Scientists don't have faith that explanations for events are rational; they theorise that that is the case, backed up by the evidence. The scientific method dictates that should eveidence present itself that this theory is wrong, the theory is rewritten. Once you apply faith to anything, even science itself, the method is invalidated, so true science becomes impossible.

In order to rewrite the theories or even to create a hypothesis in the first place you have to believe that there is a rational explanation. That is a form of faith. There are a great many things we don't know about a universe that is literally to large for human imagination. Faith does not invalidate any method unless you ignore everything else. You can even have faith in the concept of science and be blinded by that faith to anything resembling rational thought. Or, once again I can let Einstein make my argument for me.

...religion without science is blind.

Faith in anything is not inherently bad or blinding. You could even worship the concept of death itself and not be immediately turned into a supervillain. It is only when you choose to abandon everything except faith that you lose touch with reality. Even then you could exist mostly harmlessly so long as some power mad lunatic doesn't start telling you that your faith requires you to hurt others. And science, in this instance, is not explicitly scientists or the scientific method but the act of seeking answers through empirical evidence. Simply believing what someone tells you because they're a "scientist" is not science but an act of faith.

But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding.

What you suggest may have been true in the past, but no longer applies because we already know some things. There should be no faith in science because there is no faith in pure maths, which is the basis from which reasoning, and thus philosophy and therefore science, is derived. There is no faith recquired in x+y=z therefore z-x=y. The only reason faith gets into metaphysical philosophy is because it is not involved in the empirical.

Hey, @moegreche what do you think?

And in the galaxies that don't form according to our mathematical models derived from Newton's law of gravitational attraction? Isn't there faith that there's a reasonable explanation there? They already defy what we know to be an irrefutable truth of the universe and they're so far away that it's physically impossible for us to actually see what's happening from Earth or travel to them. Yet they're still observed and studied and scientists still use them to form hypotheses and theories. Is the way they behave also an absolute of mathematic certainty?

What about the theories on the origin of the universe? Or about the process of evolution? Or climate science? None of these things can be directly observed and all of our formulas are little more than guess work based on the tiny scraps of evidence we can find. Every 5 years there's a new idea of how a Tyrannosaurus looked that comes into vogue, every couple decades climate scientists predict global catastrophe as humans are supposed to cause temperatures to skyrocket or plummet to new extremes. Can you honestly tell me that there is no faith involved in studying such things, that they're just the result of mathematical certainties based on what we already know?

What about the theories on the origin of the universe? Or about the process of evolution? Or climate science? None of these things can be directly observed and all of our formulas are little more than guess work based on the tiny scraps of evidence we can find. Every 5 years there's a new idea of how a Tyrannosaurus looked that comes into vogue, every couple decades climate scientists predict global catastrophe as humans are supposed to cause temperatures to skyrocket or plummet to new extremes. Can you honestly tell me that there is no faith involved in studying such things, that they're just the result of mathematical certainties based on what we already know?

I like the way the post I linked to displayed things. Philosophy is useful and needed in order to be aware of what we are researching and why it is important (forming the scaffold), while science gives us the tool to research specific questions more closely and definitely (weaving the net around the scaffold).

We are experiencing climate change in the first lodges, and speciation has been observed. Our ideas about the Tyrannosaurus are updating, not changing completely; and climatologists are not as helpless in explaining current climate oddities as you portray it.

We are not experiencing climate change, we are experiencing weather changes. Mankind has only been accurately measuring climate factors for the last few decades, and climate change is an alteration in the global climate across hundred of thousands of years (or tens of millions depending on what scale of the climate you're referring to) and cannot be experienced in the brief 10,000 years of mankinds' cultural existence. And I was not exaggerating the 20 years figure. It was only about 20-30 years ago that climate scientists were predicting we'd be plunged into a new ice age if people didn't change their ways and start taking better care of the planet.

Speciation has never been observed. No one species has changed into another in the course of human existence. There have been shifts in allele frequency, but that happens all the time and it eventually shifts again without ever changing what species the population is. Speciation is an occurrence of macro-evolution in which after tens of million of years and countless meaningless mutations one population of a species changes into a different species. Speciation is not something that could possibly have been observed.

And, our idea on the Tyrannosaurus are changing completely. A new interpretation of the same fossils becomes popular every few years resulting in a completely different creature. Behavior, appearance, eating habits, and even assumed genetic make-up all go through extensive changes every time scientists come to a new consensus as to what each little scrape, discoloration, and pockmark mean about a creature who's bones have been exposed to unknown conditions for eons. An update is a minor alteration, the scientific community pulls a full blown George Lucas rewrite on Jurassic Park's dinosaur designs whenever it feels like it.

Generally you are painting things black where they're not, and I feel confident in saying there is no faith involved/needed. Not all sciences may be based on mathematical certainties, but they are based on reason and logic nevertheless, not on make-believes.

This right here is why we will likely never agree on anything. Straight up calling faith and religion "make-believes" shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the terms, not to mention a generally disrespectful attitude towards pretty much everything. Simply believing that everything has an answer that can be found through logic, mathematics, and reasonable empirical data is an act of faith. There are many concepts we already believe we've discovered that are simply too complex to be accurately imagined by the human mind. We can only begin to investigate them with computer simulations and weak analogies. To believe that everything out there is something that can be studied and understood by mankind is a massive leap of faith. Or, to quote Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

But you disregard the existence of that faith entirely because you refuse to accept the fact that you believe something that can't be proven. You stretch so far to distance yourself from any concept of religion that you are completely blinded to what's right there in front of you. Whether this is an act of rebellion against being controlled or just some arrogant sense of superiority over those that accept faith doesn't matter. Either way, you've abandoned the concepts of critical thinking and rational thought in exchange for your own faith in "reason" and "logic". Or at least, what you've been told they are.

I like the way the post I linked to displayed things. Philosophy is useful and needed in order to be aware of what we are researching and why it is important (forming the scaffold), while science gives us the tool to research specific questions more closely and definitely (weaving the net around the scaffold).

As you may or may not have noticed, I have repeatedly stated that science and philosophy are intertwined. I have not, nor do I have any reason to, deny the relationship between the two. But this discussion isn't about how philosophy and science interact it is about the meaning behind Einstein's statement and whether or not religion is a proper term. Going by how you see the relationship between science and philosophy a more accurate quote would be "Science without philosophy is blind, philosophy without science is lame." Since to you philosophy provides the direction and foundation while science provides the substance of an idea's existence.

This right here is why we will likely never agree on anything. Straight up calling faith and religion "make-believes" shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the terms, not to mention a generally disrespectful attitude towards pretty much everything.

Simply believing that everything has an answer that can be found through logic, mathematics, and reasonable empirical data is an act of faith.

Going by how you see the relationship between science and philosophy a more accurate quote would be "Science without philosophy is blind, philosophy without science is lame." Since to you philosophy provides the direction and foundation while science provides the substance of an idea's existence.

So first off, I really like this reformulation. Whether it is something that is in the spirit of Einstein's original thought, I think, is irrelevant. This is something that not only expresses the import of philosophy throughout the hard sciences but also the necessity of having a framework - one built of from philosophy - that can inform and steer the direction of the empirical sciences.

It may help to give philosophy a proper definition. It's literally translated to (something like) 'the love of wisdom'. And this love of wisdom is not only compatible with scientific goals, but can also inform them. I could ramble on for quite some time, but here are three important points to consider when thinking about how philosophy informs science.

1) Philosophy can tell us what the basic commitments of science are. Scientists, for example, must accept that the world is pretty much how it appears to us. They must also suppose that certain laws hold throughout the universe, without exception. These theoretical commitments are ones imposed on science and aren't generated within scientific thought (nor could they be).

2) Philosophy can not only identify the starting commitments for science, but can also determine what claims simply cannot be proven within a particular field. In other words, we use philosophy - the reasoning and natural laws of deduction - in order to determine what can (and should) follow from other claims. Of course, scientists are pretty good at figuring stuff like this out for themselves, but that's only because their philosophical commitments have been well-established.

3) Besides the start and end points for science, philosophy has a lot to say about the specific methodology of science. Should we be focused on claims that are empirically verifiable? Empirically falsifiable? Logically consistent? These are important questions that help inform the kind of research particular scientists are doing, and whether they are successful in sticking to their research methodology.

As a final point, some people hold that philosophers are good at asking questions, but not so good at providing answers. This is something that is just patently false, so statements like this make me a little grumpy. But suppose it's true - so what? Asking the right sorts of questions is the first (and perhaps most important) step in learning about the world around us. In establishing cognitive contact with a deep and mysterious universe. And, above all, promoting a love of wisdom.

@Ishtaron Forgot to mention something crucial. When I used the words "make-believe", contrary to what you interpreted I wasn't actually addressing this term to religion. My intention was to qualify the "science" you painted in your post a 'make-believe', a ridiculous farce as compared to the actual rigorous scientific method.