Difference Between Science and Philosophy
Science vs. Philosophy
The distinction between philosophy and science is very slim, but there are some differences nonetheless. Many people assume that science and philosophy are concepts contradictory to each other, but both subjects share a more positive relationship rather than an animosity.
Science can be defined as a study and understanding of natural phenomena. It is concerned with empirical data, meaning data that can be observed, tested, and repeated. It is systematic in nature, and there is a specific course of action used called the scientific method. Science bases its explanation on the results of experiments, objective evidence, and observable facts.
“Science” comes from the Latin word “scientia,” meaning “knowledge.”
There are many branches or fields of science. These branches can be classified under various headings: pure and applied sciences, physical and life sciences, Earth and space sciences. Also included in these classifications are exact science and descriptive science.
Science started out as a part of philosophy. It was then called natural philosophy, but science deviated from philosophy in the 17th century and emerged as a separate study or domain.
Science involves objective types of questions. As a study, it tries to find answers and prove them to be objective fact or truth. In its method, the experiment creates certain hypotheses that can be proven or validated as fact. In the same manner, hypotheses can also be wrong or falsified. By observing and undertaking an experiment, science produces knowledge through observation. Science’s main purpose is to extract the objective truth out of existing or naturally occurring ideas.
Science’s “predecessor,” philosophy, is a more difficult concept to define. It is broadly defined as an activity that uses reason to explore issues in many areas. Its application to many different fields makes it impossible for it to have a definite and concrete definition.
Philosophy tries to study and understand the fundamental nature of two things: the existence of man, and the relationship between man and existence. It also has many branches: metaphysics, logic, politics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and specific philosophy in fields like philosophy of language, history, the mind, and religion, among others. “Philosophy” comes from the Greek word “philosophia,” which translates into “love of wisdom.”
Philosophy is based on reason; its methods utilize logical argumentation. Philosophy uses arguments of principles as the basis for its explanation.
Philosophy entertains both subjective and objective types of questions. This means that aside from finding answers, it also resolves to generate questions. It raises questions and processes before finding out the answers. Philosophy is mostly involved with thinking and creating knowledge.
Summary:
1.Philosophy and science are two studies and domains. Philosophy came first and became the basis for science, formerly known as natural philosophy. Both studies have many branches or fields of study and make use reasoning, questioning, and analysis. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge.
2.Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.
3.”Science” comes from a Latin word (scientia), while “philosophy” was derived from the Greek “philosophia.”
4.Another common element between the two studies is that they both try to explain situations and find answers. Philosophy does this by using logical argumentation, while science utilizes empirical data. Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles, while science tries to explain based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence.
5.Science is used for instances that require empirical validation, while philosophy is used for situations where measurements and observations cannot be applied. Science also takes answers and proves them as objectively right or wrong.
6.Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy, while only some objective questions can be related in science. Aside from finding answers, philosophy also involves generating questions. Meanwhile, science is only concerned with the latter.
7.Philosophy creates knowledge through thinking; science does the same by observing.
8.Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy, which can be applied to many extensive areas of discipline.
- Differences Between Fraternity And Sorority - January 8, 2014
- Differences Between Lucite and Plastic - January 7, 2014
- Differences Between Oil and Butter - January 6, 2014
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
18 Comments
Leave a Response
References :
[0]http://jobsanger.blogspot.in/2017/01/philosophy-metaphysics-theology-science.html
Perception is mere “how” one comes to “understand” a concept or idea.
“observation” is merely relying upon sensory data; eyes, ears, nose, etc.
Our “science”, by that alone, is STILL philosophy. Yes we may be able to recreate the same conditions we understand to be necessary to accomplish an end-goal, but…. as astronomical the probability, from the big-bang- to you reading these very words, is far beyond any human calculation, and yet we still take the “small” numbers from minuscule probabilities, and use them as “fact”.
In isolated conditions, let’s say, a room…. Yes, we can repeat the same scenario and call it fact. But when variables change, it cannot always be counted as fact. When we go from the mere room, into an entire neighborhood, for example.
Some things are the same, some are not, and depending, that could quite well alter the end result of the experiment.
What our science has done, or tried to do, is find the truth of our planet, in order to be king. To use that knowledge to dominate over those who don’t know.
So here, we see, that knowledge is key.
Truth is key.
So if that Truth has been kept hidden, for the purpose of control, what makes the world think they know anything??
Education. Indoctrination into a faulty system that “appears” to work….
Force. Competition. Knowledge.
Intangible. Yet they control us all. What we do, what we say, to whom, and for why….
But again, we look too small to start our experiment…. We only consider self in most applications. We have studied from authors that elevate self, learn to develop our sense of self, and then end up feeding the selfish because we don’t know any better.
All this latter end is philosophy, but it’s down to a science anymore, if we would just look!
All people, everywhere, have been manipulated, and taught to defend their slavemasters, rather than suffer for the Truth.
That is the one key thing science does not have…. Truth. Truth is stronger than anything else whatsoever. Lies are allowed. But Truth empowers one to separate from the lies. The lie very well may try to silence the Truth, but it cannot disprove its existence.
Oops, look deeply into your motives here. Science is diametrically different from philosophy. Science treats bias (the self-serving agenda we bring to observation) as noise, as subjective noise of vantage that it then rigorously filters away such that a more and more compact map may be built of reality despite what we might want or fear reality to be. Philosophy seeks the amplification of subjectivity by superimposing a self-serving self-agreeable map over and onto reality. Science is the objective salve made necessary by subjective ick that is philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy as feminism is a branch of rape. Science is a branch of philosophy as civil rights is a branch of slavery. Science is a branch of philosophy as food is a branch of starvation. Meaning… science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
So, exactly what is it that motivates a person to claim that science is a branch of philosophy? Lets assume you need a superimposed self-serving reading of reality, lets say that your emotional being is dependent on a set of self serving lies that cast reality as a subset of what you need to feel better about yourself and your future. How disturbing then would it be if a person told you that reality is in fact independent of your emotional needs. You might even then decide to corral science by declaring it every bit as subjective as philosophy. Self liars, like substance addicts will not accept reality beyond the reality of their own needs and the fears that drive those needs.
Science is diametrically different from philosophy.
Science treats bias (the self-serving agenda we bring to observation) as noise, as subjective noise of vantage that it then rigorously filters away such that a more and more compact map may be built of reality despite what we might want or fear reality to be. Philosophy seeks the amplification of subjectivity by superimposing a self-serving self-agreeable map over and onto reality. Science is the objective salve made necessary by subjective ick that is philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy as feminism is a branch of rape. Science is a branch of philosophy as civil rights is a branch of slavery. Science is a branch of philosophy as food is a branch of starvation. Meaning… science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
So, exactly what is it that motivates a person to claim that science is a branch of philosophy? Lets assume you need a superimposed self-serving reading of reality, lets say that your emotional being is dependent on a set of self serving lies that cast reality as a subset of what you need to feel better about yourself and your future. How disturbing then would it be if a person told you that reality is in fact independent of your emotional needs. You might even then decide to corral science by declaring it every bit as subjective as philosophy. Self liars, like substance addicts will not accept reality beyond the reality of their own needs and the fears that drive those needs.
Philosophy-
It’s worth noting that the definition of philosophy varies according to people and lexicon
Most of the definitions I’ve encountered use similar phrases such as the fundamental nature of knowledge reality and existence,
Definition of philosophy in English:
Philosophy: /filosofi/
Noun (plural philosophies)
1[mass noun] The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
However, another version defines philosophy as the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge or conduct.
While others simply defined philosophy as the love of and accumulation of knowledge.
Science-O.E.D.
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:
the world of science and technology.
Although, if I were asked to personally define these two words,
Philosophy-speculations concerning the fundamental nature of reality and existence.
Science- Study of the natural world through the process of observation, experimentation, and peer review.
The major difference between the 2 disciplines is that one requires evidence or proof to back up it’s claims (science)
The other party feels that contemplation alone is enough to comprehend the mystery of reality and existence (Philosophy)
In my opinion modern philosophy is little more than speculation and or revelation,
Philosophy is the incomplete little cousin of science, while they both originate in the brain, it’s as if philosophy gives up half way through and missed the most important piece of the exercise.
The family resemblance between Science and philosophy is undeniable,
Yet, philosophy, theology, and mythology, are nearly identical to one another.
questions that belong to philosophical inquiry: “Do we survive death in any sense, and if so, do we survive for a time or for ever? Can mind dominate matter, or does matter completely dominate mind, or has each, perhaps, a certain limited independence? Has the universe a purpose? Or is it driven by blind necessity? Or is it a mere chaos and jumble, in which the natural laws that we think we find are only a fantasy generated by our own love of order? If there is a cosmic scheme, has life more importance in it than astronomy would lead us to suppose, or is our emphasis upon life mere parochialism and self-importance?”
According to the prestigious philosopher Bertrand Russell,
“The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating and to end with something so paradoxical that no one would believe it.”
It’s for this simple reason that many scientist remain hesitant or skeptical of the philosophic tradition.
Mythology, theology, and philosophy deal with the same issues, and very much in a similar manner.
All of the aforementioned disciplines speculate about the fundamental nature and reality of existence,
None of them require proof or validation to substantiate their claims,
Several competing schools of thought within you’re own disciplines,
you all make outrageous claims and predictions which fall so far outside the realm of scientific thought that it borders on the absurd,
And you each deal in abstract concepts so science isn’t able to prove or disprove anything you say, because there’s nothing quantifiable.
Science isn’t able to prove or disprove its own foundations. “Something” does not come from “nothing”. What you call “science”, evolved from “alchemy”. A look into CERN will admit that the top scientists are still alchemists.
You speak of recreate-able experiments, but CERN only figured out how to reach light speeds…. not where it came from.
Listen, I am not trying to degrade u by any means. I am asking you to look under the surface. The Truth” of the “matter”. If we are both in the same room, and I leave, to go to the store, just because 2 minutes later you see me outside, does not negate that I went to the store…. This opens up the door to another discussion on “perspective”, but clearly makes a case for “Truth” not standing upon sensory data.
When we break all form whatsoever, at CERN, what is left, but the “spirit” of the thing given form?? Any attribute whatsoever, is “form”. Any “form” of “description” needs to be depleted, destroyed, in order to reach what the spirit of the thing is. Ezekiel 28:14 makes an amazing case for this very point. The “cherub who ‘covers’ “, or, “gives ‘form’ to”, says a lot more than people care to admit.
I copied this for my assignment. Thanks 🙂
True Science in the end will be like being in a dark room looking for a black cat, and using a flashlight… And then saying “can you believe it? The theology people had it right… The cat is here!“
Bothe the articles and the comments really helped me in my presentations. Keep t up guys. I love your work.
I real thank you for what you shaped my mind on the two terms philosophy and science diference.
The meaning of theology in this site is very unrelevant….
Theology answers only these things…. Destiny, morality, origin, meaning…
Theology: Speculation with wings. It doesn’t answer/solve anything. It makes however many charlatans very rich and powerful.
The meaning of theology in this site is very unrelevant….
Theology answers only these things…. Destiny, morality, origin, meaning…
Where does the dark came from? What is the significant of dark room. Why there is a dark? Why should i look a cat in the dark???? Very simple but science complicate it…
It really disturbs me, when those calling themselves “educated”, defend their conclusions based upon “perceptions”. Granted, those perceptions may be agreed upon by others, more often than not, but that also is a case of beliefs overriding the Truth….
For instance:
Let us say that Joe is not one to lie, and Joe says he is going to the store. We see Joe leave. A few moments later, we “see” Joe walk by the window.
Some would swear that Joe was truly outside, based upon their senses. I mean, they saw who they saw, right??
This is a weak argument for what comes later. So I have another:
Take the oldest trick in the book, pulling a rabbit out of the hat….
Tell me, which is the lie??
That there was nothing in the hat?
That mirrors fooled every person in the audience, from every angle??
Or was the rabbit, that we see, hear and feel, the manifestation of our belief??
A lie can take many forms of given life, and life is given by belief….
Just as the scientist is still based upon a philosophy, it is clearly documented that our beliefs about a situation or circumstance determine how we Sense it, thereby warping the reality of anything whatsoever, when one looks at the generational momentum given to certain beliefs….
This world is not what it seems.
Our teacher once said “while science deals with proximate causes like how it solved the cause of malaria from mosquitos, philosophy deals with much ultimate questions like why the hell these fucking disease causing mosquitos exists?”
‘science’ certainly has questions as to the how of those mosquitos. if by ‘why’ you mean ‘why are there things like mosquitos in the world that bring such suffering?’, or more generally ‘why is there suffering?’, I’d call that a bottomless inquiry that has spawned and will continue to spawn many ‘answers’, but will continue to stump us all. ofcourse then I guess you could just ask a buddhist.
very detailed information.THANKS
I realize this was made five years ago. But this is the most cringe post I never read.