tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post4756300803863485758..comments2024-03-29T12:03:37.344+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: What is the difference between science and philosophy? (and theology)Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-11059517258573366922012-06-23T20:24:19.697+01:002012-06-23T20:24:19.697+01:00Science would be - to me -- the study of the tanga...Science would be - to me -- the study of the tangable.<br /> <i>Philosphy</i> the intangible, <br />With simplicity being the aspiration of both.effectivelydyslexic1112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-62967384202552791152011-06-19T15:39:29.198+01:002011-06-19T15:39:29.198+01:00What we call "science" is really materia...What we call "science" is really material science. It goes no further than that, because material science is accessible to everyone in the Crowd.<br /><br />Philosophy is the study of patterns, and is not dependent on a media, like materiality.<br /><br />This is why philosophy will be perpetually agnostic, and laughs at atheism for being self-contradicting (if you cannot prove God exists, you cannot disprove it, either -- a more complex argument belongs here, but not cluttering up your comments).<br /><br />By agnostic I do not mean in the modern sense of "crypto-atheist," just aware of possibility and not discounting it, especially in realms that we cannot access, e.g. are not material.<br /><br />I find this view much more mature and scientific than the bold proclamations of scientists which extrapolate far too much, such as "we tortured this planarian, and it had a near death experience, therefore the supernatural doesn't exist because it's the mind projection of planarians."<br /><br />It fools the crowd, but not much else.Brett Stevenshttp://www.amerika.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-4290741481513855102011-06-18T00:37:56.407+01:002011-06-18T00:37:56.407+01:00Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacte...<i>Yet, apparently, science has substantially impacted on theology and philosophy - it is, for example taken to have discredited Christianity.</i><br /><br />Well, Christianity, not in some platonic sense, but as embodied in the most prominent institutions that claim to represent it, did make some empirical claims that were proved to be false.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-20596763813419557212011-06-17T19:51:31.096+01:002011-06-17T19:51:31.096+01:00This stands out to me in physics (of all places!) ...This stands out to me in physics (of all places!) and neuroscience especially. String theorists have reached far beyond their grasp and are waving about wildly, and every time I read another story about what has been discovered about free will from looking at fMRIs I can't help but laugh. The insularity of the positivist mind is truly amazing from a really open minded point of view.Gabe Ruthnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-33861500915817160792011-06-17T09:08:54.348+01:002011-06-17T09:08:54.348+01:00Broadly speaking, James Hannam's thesis in his...Broadly speaking, James Hannam's thesis in his book, <i>God's Philosophers</i>, is that medieval scholars anticipated the method of modern scientific thinking largely by building on the wisdom of Aristotle. <br /><br />But the change from the medieval synthesis, in which Greek philosophy is united with Judeo-Christian theology, to the modern view of humanity's peripheral place in the universe is more thoroughly analysed in <i>The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science</i> by E.A Burtt - first published in 1924. This book is still in print and well worth studying.Alexnoreply@blogger.com