Is philosophy a science?

Is philosophy a science?

No, but neither is math

except it's the science of logic.

>is inductive logic a subfield of deductive logic

No, science means using the scientific method

But it's not cause we made it up

Science is a wholly contained subset of philosophy. There is some philosophy that is not science.

If it doesn't conduct empirical research, then it's not a science.

Of course, there are applied philosophers who do empirical research. But usually the moment they start looking at data they just create a new field. For example, ethicists are philosophers, moral pyschologists are scientists.

No.

No it's not. Foundations of a subject aren't the subject itself that's just pure autism. Philosophy of science is an academic discipline which has lies in the intersection of both philisophy and science. Science may implicitely some epistenology when investigating whatever, but the geneneral idea is to investugate questions related to what qe can observe in nature using whatever tools we find out. A really giod philosopher will get his ass handed out even in basic research because there's a lot of skills and idead that surround the field that aren't really concerned with philosophical inquiry. The same way it's dumb that a scientists just talks out of his own ass and claims he "knows" the rules and nature of our universe and that everything is just QM so why have religion etc etc.

No, science is a method derived from philosophy.

It's derived from what was considered "philosophy" back in the day, but philosophy was a term used for basically all academic pursuits. That doesn't mean science is applied epistemology.

Yes and all true academic pursuits in their most pared back, abstract sense are philosophy. Science is one particular avenue of philosophy.

In what way? Discussing about the validity of the claims made by science is a thing, but what does that tells us about how to calibrate anything?

Lrn2science fgt pls

Philosphy is the pursuit of truth and knowledge, science is one of its methods. Initially science was explicitly called natural philosophy.

there's a reason it changed

This is a trick question.
So why not.

>Philosophy is the pursuit of truth and knowledge
Awfully restricrtive definition and more of a literal translation of the fucking greek word... The thing we call modern philosophy deals witha specific branch of those questions which are more fundamental or inaccesible by simpler means. The nature lf reality, thought, morality etc.
>Science is one of it's methods
Not really, science is in a much stronger truth framework and isn't immediately concered about philosophical topics.
>science was natural philosophy hurr durr
Yes, but again, theres a big distinction between what we consider modern proper academic philosophy and the term used back in the day when the academic fields weren't clear cut. Yea it was "philosophy", but some think that then modern science sprung because francis bacon said some shit (clarifying that it was important shit, but had nothing to do with tycho brahes meadurments). I.e. it wasn't that philosophers developed empiricism and the applied it, it just happened that certain methods of observation and experimentation started to show really consistent results to more intellectuals started doing it and which then sprung out many questipns about the validity of those claims.

Not restrictive at all, it covers formal logic, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, science and more.

Also as to science not being concerned with philosophical topics. Absolute nonsense, philosophical areas cover everything that science explores and much more.

>philosophy of religion
>not religion but the philosophical investigation of that activity
>but I make no distinction between philosophy of science and science
Hurrr. Is math then just applied philosophy even though the field of philosophy of math also exist? Why make the distinction then? You are even more reductionist.
You forgot the little immediately i put there. I'm aware philosophy of science exists, but that's a another field, not science in itself.

Philosophy of something and the practice itself are different, one takes a more reflexive look at the other. That in no way precludes both from being philosophy. Philosophy of science analyses the methods at use in natural philosophies. Essentially an audit.

So you are running with the definition of philosophy, by it's literal etymology? Okey then that's fine, but I didn't knew that there were still deparments on philosophy who are defined as people who love knowledge. In what sense isn't anyone who likes knowledge a philosopher then? Either you are making a completley irrelevenat point, or you are not conecting why science is a subfield of my philsophy deparment at my uni.

Yes. Philosophy is the science of truth.

Technically people who pursue knowledge are philosophers in the same way that those who posit hypotheses and run experiments are scientists. Not formally or with any real accreditation but it is true nonetheless.

Yea, but the general discussion is about people claiming they are x becase y is more fundamental that x. Doesn't have to be philosophy, just look at how physicists say that chemistry is applied physics, etc, etc.

Philosophy evaluates how science should be done. "Science" as a whole tends to include a bunch of shit that philosophy has nothing to comment on. For example, we don't need philosophy to explain the technical details of genetic engineering. But philosophy of biology is useful when considering the validity and purpose of such experiments and results. And bioethics informs us if we should even do certain types of genetic engineering at all.

This. The ven diagram is the perfect visual aid.

Philosophy is part of the scientific method. And science was born by philosophy.

>departments on philosophy
That would be the people handing out "PhD" (Doctor of Philosophy) titles

Logic, if considered to be a part of philosophy rather than being a separate formal science, is undoubtfully a science.

Philosophy of science, despite not being science per so, provides essential methodological framework for undertaking scientific research in meaningful way, and arguably so does philosophy of language, as scientific articles are a collection of sentences.

The rest? Doubtfully, unless you expand the use of the word "science" beyond its commonly accepted use. Still, it would be scientism to reject it simply because it is not science, although I personally find it hard to find any respect to continental philosophy due to my strong interest in natual sciences.

No, but science is a philosophy.

>this fucking thread again