Is science just another philosophical assumption?

>What do you think about the existence of "philosophy of science"?

essentially science historians.

I have a hard time believing all philosophies are that exclusive.

>The belief that nothing exists outside your own mind — surely there must be some way of demonstrating that it was false? Had it not been exposed long ago as a fallacy? There was even a name for it, which he had forgotten. A faint smile twitched the corners of O’Brien’s mouth as he looked down at him.

>’I told you, Winston,’ he said, ’that metaphysics is not your strong point. The word you are trying to think of is solipsism. But you are mistaken. This is not solipsism. Collective solipsism, if you like. But that is a different thing: in fact, the opposite thing. All this is a digression,’ he added in a different tone. ’The real power, the power we have to fight for night and day, is not power over things, but over men.

I am not ignorant about philosophy. It is just that the topic has never been touched in a classroom. No one seems to give a fuck.

>discussion on the cringiness of philosophy of science

Yeah but we don't have a field of research about the cringiness of philosophy of science. That said, if I could get paid to write that kind of shit then I definitely would.

This sentiment, of course, explains why philosophers of science exist.

>Are you really going to pay me just to write my opinions in an obscure journal nobody reads and then talk about it to some impressionable 18 year olds? SOLD

Numbers don't exist, so where does that put your little food chain?

Science's response to the wordgames of philosophers is that science actually works. We put a man on the moon, we didn't do that with philosophy.

But what is the ultimate point of putting a man on the moon? To prove to the russians that we can? Why do we care? It's our stupid ego isn't it, in the end putting him on the moon was a useless message, it didn't discourage the russians at all, and we wasted a bunch of time and resources doing it. It might have been useful if we kept exploring space, but we didn't. America wanted to keep it's ego intact.

It was fun and we learned a lot on the way there!

I think that emperical scientists have become rather numb towards the philosophers view on their methods. They have acquired some sort of 'inductive optimism': emperical proofs are held in the highest regard, as they have been shown most successful in the past and have formed the 'justification' of many fields. The non-emperical talk of the philosopher is not heard by them, as it is a different language.

Compare this with philosophy of mathematics. This is actually relevant, either being performed by actual mathematicians or inspire mathematicians to explore other axiomatic systems. This is, I think, due to the fact that the arguments of philosophy and mathematics are similar, so there can be productive discussion without mutual contempt, e.g. 'what an idiot, why does he not believe my experiment', 'why doesn't he understand that you can't know nothing'.

You're dumb, I'll actually digest anything you throw into a discussion if humans co pletely understand the thought process of newborns.

Posting this day in and day out, you pseudo-intellectual pleb. There are plenty of scientists who care about the philosophy of science and plenty who don't.
Yes, but that doesn't devalue it in any way. The scientific method is built on assumptions of empiricism, that either the most effective or only way to come to knowledge is our own sensory experience. Of course, then through these empirical methods we're subject to things like the problem of induction, but I think any empiricist would argue that this problem is nothing compared to the problems that other epistemological frameworks would give way to.

I think the key thing to keep in mind when discussing something is the distinction between "describing reality" and "modeling reality." Science does not truly make claims about "what is", it makes claims about "what is observable." Personally, I think this is exactly where science gets its value and why it's so useful, but as someone who has more of a liking for math than science I edge more towards rationalism than empiricism.

Science is most definitely not self-contained.

First of all it uses math, which can't be empirically proven. It also relies on axioms, so math isn't self-contained either -- we can't mathematically prove if those axioms are consistent.

Second of all, the way you come up with theories isn't explained at all by the scientific method. Nobody just rolls a die and just writes down a random string of symbols. Materialist science doesn't explain meaning.

For those of you that don't know, Karl Popper argued that the scientific method parallels a "modus tollens" argument form. Hence, he provided a partial solution to the problem of induction. He showed that science is, despite assertions to the contrary, more deductive than it gets credit for. For Popper, the scientific method can be roughly summed up as follows:
-If X is the case, then Y results will happen in an experiment (hypothesis).
-If results Y do not show, then X is not the case. Hence, science can tell us, with certainty, what is not the case.
-If results Y do show, then X showed predictive capacity and shows potential to eventually develop into a theory.
Good science is marked by vigorous attempts to show that X is not the case. If after much research, scientists fail to falsify X, then X has basis to become a theory. A theory is strong to the extent that it is easy to falsify and yet attempts to falsify have failed.
Sciences which are merely descriptive, like the social sciences, lack this drive to falsify. Hence, the problem of induction is more problematic for them.

It's hard to see how Popper was wrong. He represents those very rare moments in philosophy where progress is actually made.
I have a bachelors in philosophy by the way.

You are everything wrong with this board

Came here to post this

I'm majoring in physics at a top university and I took a course literally called "philosophy of the natural sciences" so...

And yeah obviously I know of Popper, though Kuhn's work was much more compelling to me

>And since then, scientists or science enthusiasts have had that sense of knowledge privilege, meaning they believe to have the means to achieve truth.

Ugh. Sociologists have studied scientists and their applications for quite a while actually. It's basically just another circle jerk. Science may be the most useful tool to understanding the universe around us, but it's not perfect. Especially because it's used by humans, and human beings are trash at just about everything. We have too many biases and problems (lazy as fuck) to use science perfectly.
It's the best system we got but if you honestly make the assumption it's perfect and will reveal actual, pure truths, than you're a retard.

>assumptions, therefore stop everything
okay

I considered philosopy to be a circle jerk until I actually started reading with the intention of reaching answers, and you do.

Philosophy created human interaction with the natural world, scientific positivism it's a philosopic standpoint,e very scientist has tested the waters in the realm of discussion before being published, philosophers aren't going around attention whoring, with very few exceptions, they are a huge part of every discussion and every human advance from the shadows.

If you bother with scientists biographies you find all this influence by thinkers and writers that it shouldn't be obvious.

At the same time they have opposed science given people an alternative, a different way to see the world outside the dogmatic paradigmas of science, an alternative that scientist can also take advantage of.

The use on the field of science it's never limited to the philosophy of science, that, as user mentioned, very few people read, instead involves all the human experience of the people developing the research.

The logic class I took to fill in my humanities requirement as an undergrad was taught by a philosopher of science, but we didn't talk about that in class.

Science is about proving a philosophy right.

Science without the purpose of bettering our lives and our environment is meaningless. Thought without feeling in cold, dark and brutal

Someone shop that image to have the bogdanoff brothers hold up the epistemological philosopher and the nihilist.

i think empiricism is like a cheaty way to acquire knowledge about something

it gives information which is much more reliable but very specific, but calling science reductionist is justified since it does have problems with more complex matters all the way up until it knows all the components

thats why filthy structuralists were rampant in young sciences, especially less pure ones

darwin and freud are good examples of you first need to make an all-including mechanism which can later be corrected (in freuds case to an extent that knowledge in psychology is so different some considered him to be a detriment, ignoring that he was super important), so i dont know for epistemological philosophy in general, but we still need help because the scientific method is literally epistomological cheating