Science impacts philosophy

 Science impacts philosophy. It has that impact in many ways, for once they must be compatible. Philosophy is reasoning based on common experience. A philosophical claim depending on unsupported scientific propositions becomes invalid.  There must be a material world to base itself on, encountering this it is powerless - philosophy cannot strengthen claims that are unsupportable by common experience. Secondly, science is attention-grabbing. It influences people's thoughts wholly and partially, often combining ideas with scientific ones. Thirdly, philosophy is the most available means of assessing and finding obstacles, which often makes it the first applied toolset. Imagining space travel using currently held knowledge and common reasoning is philosophy, after obvious objections muted can we enquire scientifically. Most developments towards science, therefore, start philosophically and becomes scientific. Science and philosophy are therefore mutually influential.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Competition

 There is honorable competition and dishonorable competition. By honorable, I here mean a good utilitarian action - one that produces the most good for the most people. By competition, I'll mean action with unequal outcomes sought by more than one person. Honorable businesses often win, but not always. An appropriate term for business is something that serves products, under this term criminal enterprise is hereto included. A factor thus is legality vs illegality. Criminality and the law are opposing forces, therefore the other is good/bad because of the other. We here assume the law is mostly, though not universally, good. Have we then sufficiently discovered dishonorable competition? No, we have only covered the criminally dishonorable competition. Is only that which is legal good? To assert that means we believe the law is omnipotent and omnipresent, where the law doesn't exist there can be no discernment of criminality. As we stated the law is not always good, this may be d...
Read more

Hvordan leve et godt liv?

Spør vi dette for andre, oss selv, individer eller grupper? Kroppslig sett kan du ikke leve godt om du sulter, fryser eller trues fysisk. Det gode liv baserte seg på naturens premisser, i dag baserer den seg på sosiale premisser. Samfunnet utstrekker seg til å løse våre problemer, den gjør det til såpass grad at 'naturlige problemer' er i dag samfunnsproblemer. Sykdom? Lege. Sult? Matbutikk. Emosjonsproblemer? Psykiater. Alt kommer av naturen, men er løst av samfunnet. Men samfunnet er komplisert, å manøvrere det risikerer både gleder og smerter. Å falle ut er derfor farlig, dette gjør sosiale konflikter til de mest stikkende. Å minimere lidelse krever da et godt oppgjør med vårt samfunnsforhold. Om ikke låses vi til noe ugunstig eller utestøtt. Våre grunleggende problemer takles med samfunnsadferd.
Read more