science and philosophy

[monkboon]

I have only been a member of this forum for a short while in comparison to many others, lifegazer included, but I have noticed that with a few notable exceptions, those who debate lifegazer tend to be relative newbies, indicating that he is adept at wearing out those who would disagree with him. I now find I'm in that situation - I'm worn out. Illogic does that to me.

I have but one thing I wish to hear from lifegazer. Read on.

A quick search shows that in the last year, lifegazer has on at least 11 occasions made the following (or similar) assertion: science is neither a philosophy nor a basis for one. See here (1) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870409517#post1870409517), here (2) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870553155#post1870553155), here (3) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870557756#post1870557756), here (4) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870614536#post1870614536), here (5) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870667187#post1870667187), here (6) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870667631#post1870667631), here (7) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870667940#post1870667940), here (8) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870680540#post1870680540), here (9) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870701244#post1870701244), here (10) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870703964#post1870703964), and here (11) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870704020#post1870704020).

I haven't read all of the above threads in their entirety, but I find it disturbing that at least in the last three months, no one seems to have challenged that assertion.

I think it's quite reasonable to establish a philosophy based upon the premise that science has provided us with the best model of the world around us so far, and experience shows that this model will continually be refined. New observations will naturally invalidate hypotheses made from prior observations, but where proper scientific method had been followed in those earlier hypotheses, the correction tends to be less revolutionary than evolutionary.

So I'd like to know what everyone thinks on the matter: Can a reasonable philosophy be based upon science or not? Why or why not?

Lifegazer, I will take it as given that you do not agree. From you, I want to know why not.

[c4ts]

Sure it can, but it's already the other way around.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by monkboon
I haven't read all of the above threads in their entirety, but I find it disturbing that at least in the last three months, no one seems to have challenged that assertion.

Head-in-the-sand syndrome.

So I'd like to know what everyone thinks on the matter: Can a reasonable philosophy be based upon science or not? Why or why not?

Lifegazer, I will take it as given that you do not agree. From you, I want to know why not.
There is no proof - philosophical or otherwise - for the existence of anything other than whatever it is that we are which is having the internal experiences of sensation, thought & feeling.
In other words, there is no proof of a reality external to whatever it is that we are. I.e., there is no proof for an external reality... an "out there".

Science is the study of perceived/sensed order. We cannot study anything beyond our own awareness.
Therefore, all observed laws mirror the order which exists within awareness, amongst sensations which give the impression of "things"... within whatever it is that we are.

Science is not the study of a real world full of real things existing beyond whatever it is that we are. Science is the study of a world which exists within us. A representative world.

No human has ever observed anything outside of himself. Therefore, all knowledge relates to "things" that exist within.

So, science is not a study of a real world. It tells us nothing about a real world.
Therefore, those that use science to mock religion, berate idealists, or sustain philosophy of a materialist ilk, are completely ignorant to the limitations of science.

Indeed, given the above revelations, I claim that certain scientific knowledge actually supports the claims of idealists. Read my thread about QM for more.
But one fact sticks-out above all others - science can tell us nothing about a "real world".

Thanks for showing an interest.

[c4ts]

Once again, solipsism does not disprove the sensible universe. The fact that you are able to sense things means it's still there. And you might as well try to understand it while you can experience it, whether or not it is an illusion.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by c4ts
The fact that you are able to sense things means it's still there. And you might as well try to understand it while you can experience it, whether or not it is an illusion.
If it's an illusion mate, then it aint real, is it?
And if it aint real, then science tells us nothing about a real world - about an "out there".

... those that use science to mock religion, berate idealists, or sustain philosophy of a materialist ilk, are completely ignorant to the limitations of science.

[lifegazer]

Interesting that already, five have voted for "yes, of course", completely ignoring everything I have said... and failing to provide any reason for their beliefs.

Head-in-the-sand syndrome.

It amazes me how people can just continue to lie to themselves. I just don't gettit.

[Correa Neto]

It is my personal opinion that nowdays, any valid philosophy must take in to account what mankind, using science, has gathered about the universe . All philosophies that do not do it, that ignore this knoweledge or accepts just the parts that fit with its core, ignoring the rest, is sheer wild speculation, at best.

edited for typos

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
It is my personal opinion that today, any valid philosophy must take in to account what mankind, using science, has learnt about the universe that exists within whatever it is that we are .

Note the qualifier, provided by myself.

All philosophies that do not do it, that ignore this knoweledge or accepts just the parts that fit with its core, ignoring the rest, is sheer wild speculation, at best.
Pray tell, name any scientific knowledge of the illusory world existing within whatever it is that we are, which supports philosophy of a materialistic ilk or refutes philosophy of an idealistic ilk.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Head-in-the-sand syndrome.

Why, because I didn't read the entirety of some threads that have sat idle for a few months, or because I challenge an assertion you've made?

There is no proof - philosophical or otherwise - for the existence of anything other than whatever it is that we are which is having the internal experiences of sensation, thought & feeling.

I didn't ask for proof. I didn't start this thread to get another rehashing of your version of solipsism. I'm familiar enough with that as it is. Hell, I discarded solipsism at the age of 13, and I didn't even know what it was at the time.

My point is that science does a pretty decent job of predicting what will happen under given circumstances. When I add baking soda to vinegar, it foams over every time. Science tells me why. Does your philosophy come close to that? No.

But let's consider the possibility that what we seem to think of as reality is in fact an illusion. Science still tells us how certain aspects of that illusion will behave, so what's wrong with basing a philosophy upon it?

In other words, there is no proof of a reality external to whatever it is that we are. I.e., there is no proof for an external reality... an "out there".

And yet, there's no proof that an external reality does not exist, yet you feel free to make statements from your philosophy that rely on that presumed non-existence.



Science is the study of perceived/sensed order. We cannot study anything beyond our own awareness.
Therefore, all observed laws mirror the order which exists within awareness, amongst sensations which give the impression of "things"... within whatever it is that we are.



So you repeatedly assert, but I believe you're wrong. Science is a process of making observations, forming and refining hypotheses, making further observations to confirm or deny the reliability of those hypotheses, and so on. You assert that we can not observe anything other than what is internal to whatever it is that we are. (Whatever it is that I am is me, so from here on out, I refuse to use this bulky and pointless phrase) I say you confuse the observation and the observed. If I observe my cup of vinegar to overflow from the release of carbon dioxide, that cup is not internal to me. I make the observation for no one but myself, but someone else can observe the same phenomenon and draw the same, or different, conclusions.



Science is not the study of a real world full of real things existing beyond whatever it is that we are. Science is the study of a world which exists within us. A representative world.


Wrong. We are a part of this world, it is neither entirely internal to, nor entirely external to us. I assert this with all the authority with which you assert the contrary.


No human has ever observed anything outside of himself.

Ha! I scoff at you. (sorry, I'm really getting tired of this assertion).

Therefore, all knowledge relates to "things" that exist within.


Knowledge is internal. The things we know about are not.


So, science is not a study of a real world. It tells us nothing about a real world.

So you say.


Therefore, those that use science to mock religion, berate idealists, or sustain philosophy of a materialist ilk, are completely ignorant to the limitations of science.


I am well aware of the limitations of science. Are you aware of the limitations of your philosophy?


Indeed, given the above revelations, I claim that certain scientific knowledge actually supports the claims of idealists. Read my thread about QM for more.

I've followed every ridiculous word of it.


But one fact sticks-out above all others - science can tell us nothing about a "real world".

So you have said.



Thanks for showing an interest.

My pleasure. Now answer the question.

[espritch]

Interesting that already, five have voted for "yes, of course", completely ignoring everything I have said... and failing to provide any reason for their beliefs.

I should point out that if you are correct, I have no reason to actually believe you exist. Why should I pay attention to the ramblings of a figment of my imagination?

On the other hand, if you do exist, then the only way I can know this is based on what I experience about you. So the only way I can have any valid reason to pay attention to your opion is to assume that you are wrong.

[Eleatic Stranger]

I'd say that science can't be the basis for philosophy in the way asked, and seem to be the only one to do so so far. The reason, however, is simply that science is based on a particular philosophy. And in fact its evident success gives a fairly substantial amount of support for the philosophic theories on which it is based - given the philosophy that underlies it.

The only reason, essentially, that science can't be a basis for (a) philosophy is that any claim that it is (ie, the claim that it justifies some philosophic viewpoint) is itself a philosophic thesis. Philosophy is really twisty in a way that science is not. This still, however, gives absolutely no creedence to lifegazer's ridiculous assertions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by monkboon
Why, because I didn't read the entirety of some threads that have sat idle for a few months, or because I challenge an assertion you've made?

I was talking about people in-general, not you. Although having read your response here, I now know that I'm talking about you also.

"There is no proof - philosophical or otherwise - for the existence of anything other than whatever it is that we are which is having the internal experiences of sensation, thought & feeling."

I didn't ask for proof. I didn't start this thread to get another rehashing of your version of solipsism. I'm familiar enough with that as it is. Hell, I discarded solipsism at the age of 13, and I didn't even know what it was at the time.

Why discard something when you don't know what it is? Never mind.
You asked whether science was the basis for a philosophy. My response to you explains why science is not such thing. If you want to ignore my response and keep your head in the sand, then sobeit. But in future, don't start a philosophical discussion and ask me questions if you have no intention of addressing my philosophical answers.

My point is that science does a pretty decent job of predicting what will happen under given circumstances. When I add baking soda to vinegar, it foams over every time. Science tells me why. Does your philosophy come close to that? No.

What's this got to do with reality?
Can you even prove that "baking soda" and "vinegar" exist beyond your sense of them? No you cannot. Neither can science.
So what profound philosophical point are you making when you tell me this?

But let's consider the possibility that what we seem to think of as reality is in fact an illusion. Science still tells us how certain aspects of that illusion will behave, so what's wrong with basing a philosophy upon it?

What sort of philosophy?
Certainly, philosophy of a materialist ilk cannot be based upon internal experience.

"In other words, there is no proof of a reality external to whatever it is that we are. I.e., there is no proof for an external reality... an "out there"."

And yet, there's no proof that an external reality does not exist, yet you feel free to make statements from your philosophy that rely on that presumed non-existence.

Your first sentence is arguable, of course, especially as I think that I have such proof.
Regardless, the discussion is centred around the philosophical importance of science... and if there is no proof of an "out there", then scientific knowledge can be shown to tell us nothing about a real world. Absolutely zilch.
Given this realisation, and given your question, one is left with no alternative than to accept the philosophical lameness of science except, arguably, as a support to idealistic philosophy.

"Science is the study of perceived/sensed order. We cannot study anything beyond our own awareness.
Therefore, all observed laws mirror the order which exists within awareness, amongst sensations which give the impression of "things"... within whatever it is that we are."


So you repeatedly assert, but I believe you're wrong.

You cannot observe anything outside your own awareness (outside your own being). If you think this is wrong, then you are deluding yourself. In fact, if philosophers could prove otherwise, we would already have proof of an "out there" and I would be wasting my time trying to explain otherwise to you.
I'm telling you the truth. If you ignore that truth, then you are guilty of lieing to yourself.

I say you confuse the observation and the observed.

That's the point - all knowledge pertains to "observation". We know nothing about "the observed" and can only have faith in the existence of such entities.

... "Faith" is not the basis of a philosophy!!

If I observe my cup of vinegar to overflow from the release of carbon dioxide, that cup is not internal to me.

Incorrect. All observation is internal to you, since all observation is gleaned directly from the sensations.

"Science is not the study of a real world full of real things existing beyond whatever it is that we are. Science is the study of a world which exists within us. A representative world."

Wrong. We are a part of this world, it is neither entirely internal to, nor entirely external to us. I assert this with all the authority with which you assert the contrary.

That's rubbish. Even the observation of your body is internal to awareness. So is the observation of "other people".
You just aren't grasping any of this.

"No human has ever observed anything outside of himself."

Ha! I scoff at you. (sorry, I'm really getting tired of this assertion).

What have you observed recently outside your awareness?
What was your experience of this "thing"? I mean, you had to have seen 'it' other than by internal sensation since you claim to have seen 'it' outside your awareness/self.
So, explain what things are really like to mortals such as myself who can only see them internally, by representative sensation.

Knowledge is internal. The things we know about are not.

That's just a religious mantra pal. I thought you wanted to get "philosophical"?

You need to open your mind mate. You have been indoctrinated with beliefs that have no philosophical foundation.
This is the truth and if you were to speak to any "proper philosopher" you'd get the same response.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Interesting that already, five have voted for "yes, of course", completely ignoring everything I have said... and failing to provide any reason for their beliefs.

Now, that ladies and gentlemen, is an example of a bloated ego... I should say that you Lifegazer, are completely ignoring what´s been said... and failing to provide reasons for your beliefs.

Now, after this annoying interruption, lets go back to the thread, that raises a truly interesting discussion.

Philosophies -in the sense we are discussing here (but are there any real others?) usually try to figure out if there is a reason, a sense, a purpose, a natural ethical code, etc. in diverse aspects regarding our minds, lives, society and the universe.

I find extremely difficult -if not impossible- nowdays to properly achieve such tasks (better say to properly discuss the above topics) without support from the knoweledge gathered by science.

So, can philosophy be made without science? Well, yes. It´s been done like this before the renaissance. A sidenote - I have the impression that by then, theology, and not science, was what provided knoweledge as support).

And can philosophy without science be made nowdays? Well, again yes, but I think it will not be satisfactory.

A last note- I aknoweledge that my background may have induced some bias in my thinking regarding this issue.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Now, that ladies and gentlemen, is an example of a bloated ego... I should say that you Lifegazer, are completely ignoring what´s been said... and failing to provide reasons for your beliefs.

Hold on - what's been said here that supports the notion that science is either a philosophy or the basis for one?
And this thread isn't about my philosophy, so you cannot even change the subject to avoid the issue!

Start walking the walk or get your head out of that sand mate. Science tells us zero about a "real world". A big fat nothing.
Are you just going to lie to yourself till you die? I'm curious to know why people do this. Feel free to answer.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If it's an illusion mate, then it aint real, is it?
And if it aint real, then science tells us nothing about a real world - about an "out there".


So? It still affects the senses. As I said, even if it's not real, you can still learn about it through the senses because it affects the senses. Did you miss out on the other half of Descartes?

[epepke]

Originally posted by monkboon
I think it's quite reasonable to establish a philosophy based upon the premise that science has provided us with the best model of the world around us so far, and experience shows that this model will continually be refined.

There are three aspects in which I think science could be called a philosophy or the basis of a philosophy:

1) Observation that it works, as you mentioned.
2) The idea that the only real test of a hypothesis is observation or experiment
3) Feynman's characterization of science as a "satisfactory philosophy of ignorance"

However, there are a couple of problems. The first is that it is different from those things that are generally approved of by philosophers these days. 1 and 2 are likely to elicit a response of "empiricism is dead, you loser" or maybe "logical positivism is dead, you loser" or something like that.

3 is very different from the majority of philosophies, which generally start from assumptions or basic principles, assign truth values to them, and build up using some forms of logic. In science, one can never be absolutely certain about anything, and while logic and math are also used, they tend to be used in a rather different way. Whereas Descartes may say, "I think, therefore I am," a scientist would have to say, "'I think' seems to be a good working hypothesis to explain these phenomena, I don't really know how well 'I' and 'think' map onto things in the real world. First of all, there's the evidence of split-brain patients, so 'I' may be just an approximation that is generally useful. Second, I don't know what this 'thinking' is. Does the 'I' do it, or does it simply perceive the results of this 'thinking.'" And so on and so forth. Not every physicist has done this, of course, but I'd bet most psychologists have done so.

Anyway, science is robust in terms of ignorance or uncertainty, whereas most philosophy is rather fragile. A scientific chain of logic where one term is changed from 100% to 99%, or "infinite" versus "really, really big" can still work, while most philosophical positions fall apart if this is so.

The other problem is that there is an awful lot of baggage that has been tacked on by philosophers of science over the years, and most of it seems to me superfluous, rather naive, and really only meaningful in terms of a kind of academic fashion. Some of it's wrong, but most of it just basically misses the point, like trying to understand how the game show Jeapordy works by comparing contestants' shoe sizes.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Boy, you must be really up on the intricacies of philosophy of science as a general discipline and know a bunch of philosophers to be justified in saying stuff like that epepke.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
Boy, you must be really up on the intricacies of philosophy of science as a general discipline and know a bunch of philosophers to be justified in saying stuff like that epepke.

Heh. Nice sarcasm. But I'll ignore the sarcasm.

It's a minor interest of mine, so I probably haven't read more than 200-250 books on the subject. I think I've only known about a dozen PhD philosophers on a drinking-beer-together basis, and I've only had two PhD philosophers as students.

But if you want to argue, I'd be glad to. Let's start with Newton-Smith, who I think is near the best of the bunch. Even though he got a bit repetitive in his essays, I think he describes a sensible approach to the notion of T-objects and O-objects. I don't have much problem with him. In a modern sense, it's the schools of Kuhn and Feyerabend that I have most problems with, but these are the most popular schools these days, so I think it's justifiable.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by lifegazer
If it's an illusion mate, then it aint real, is it?
And if it aint real, then science tells us nothing about a real world - about an "out there".

... those that use science to mock religion, berate idealists, or sustain philosophy of a materialist ilk, are completely ignorant to the limitations of science.

You seem to have no idea of the idea scientists have of the limitations of scientific method. You seem to think that science claims to have proof of external reality, but this is simply not true. There is evidence of an external reality, namely all of our observations.
Science does not provide definitive answers. It just tries to make sense of whatever the universe appears to be.
You keep harping on about reality beyond the 'illusion' but we cannot escape this illusion.
And because of this, you don't hear scientists saying all this, because they have agreed upon treating 'reality' as the only researchable thing. It's as real as anything will ever be to anyone.
Unless of course you can tell us how to escape the illusion, lifegazer.

[Correa Neto]

Epepke, Eleatic Stranger, Monkboon, H'ethetheth et alii (thanks programmers for cut-and-paste):

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but if, as epepke wrote, when building a philosophy one "start from assumptions or basic principles, assign truth values to them, and build up using some forms of logic", wouldn´t it be the correct next step to test it against avaliable information, that usually comes from science?

Is this is so, I guess it would be correct to state that science is a base to a philosophy (at least nowdays). On the other hand, consider a philosophy that does not do so, remaining untested. Wouldn´t it have a lot of chances to be just an exercise of logic (even a fascinating one), but quite possibly with little actual use?

Or perhaps it would be better say that scientific methodology can (i would tend to say must) be used as a working tool to build a solid philosophy?

Please note that, as I said before, my background may induce bias in my opinions. So, please help clarifying my doubts.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hold on - what's been said here that supports the notion that science is either a philosophy or the basis for one?
And this thread isn't about my philosophy, so you cannot even change the subject to avoid the issue!

Start walking the walk or get your head out of that sand mate. Science tells us zero about a "real world". A big fat nothing.
Are you just going to lie to yourself till you die? I'm curious to know why people do this. Feel free to answer.

Lifegazer, your reply is utterly ironic, since you are the one who is literally sticking your head in the sand of a bunch of flawed baseless speculations. Are you going to lie to yourself untill the day you die?

Stop trying to hijack the thread. The universe is not spinning around you (neither it is inside you). You lack both the knoweledge -and specially- the methodology to enter in the discussions in this particular thread. So, move away or discuss the issue in focus.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Epepke, Eleatic Stranger, Monkboon, H'ethetheth et alii (thanks programmers for cut-and-paste):

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but if, as epepke wrote, when building a philosophy one "start from assumptions or basic principles, assign truth values to them, and build up using some forms of logic", wouldn´t it be the correct next step to test it against avaliable information, that usually comes from science?

Is this is so, I guess it would be correct to state that science is a base to a philosophy (at least nowdays). On the other hand, consider a philosophy that does not do so, remaining untested. Wouldn´t it have a lot of chances to be just an exercise of logic (even a fascinating one), but quite possibly with little actual use?

Or perhaps it would be better say that scientific methodology can (i would tend to say must) be used as a working tool to build a solid philosophy?
If you build a philosophy like epepke suggested, starting from basic principles that are agreed upon to be true, then sometimes you will end up with interesting stuff that is useful to understanding the universe. Maybe you create some fresh perspective, a way to look at things that is new and very instructive. I think at this time, M-theory would be a good example.
But I think that philosophy, as far as finding 'truth' about the universe is concerned, can only be applied to guide scientific research to discover the supposed order in the universe.
Science provides new territories for philosophers to explore. At the edges of knowledge the philosophers can ponder the possible directions to explore.

Science is a basis for philosophy, but for philosophy in a narrow sense, namely philosophy pertaining to the advance of scientific knowledge. In my opinion, this iterative process to advance science is the only useful application of philosophy, save for entertainment perhaps. Lifegazer would be an exponent of the latter.

Long story short: I think I agree with you. :D

[Bubbles]

I'm not sure what is meant by 'philosophy', so I'm not sure how to answer the original question.

I would argue this: One of the really foundational philosophical questions is the relationship between the subjective and the objective: the subjective being reality as I experience it and the objective being what reality actually is.

Being a skeptic (in the classical sense), I would say that there is no proof of relationship between the two. We are measuring with uncalibratable instruments. Being, also, a practicle person, I assume that there is ome relationship between the two.

Science, I would argue, begins with the assumption that our experience of reality conforms to reality itself. There is, of course, no point in following the scientific method if my observations can tell me nothing about reality.

In that sense, I would say that science flows out of a particular philosophy.

Finally, I would make a destinction between the scientific method and materialism. The scientific method deals with what is observable. Materialism asserts that only the observable is real. The difference is, I think, inadequately appreciated.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Why discard something when you don't know what it is?

My fault - I intended to write that I had discarded it without knowing what it was called. I was in a hurry.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Your first sentence is arguable, of course, especially as I think that I have such proof.

Would you care to share it with the rest of us? We certainly haven't seen it yet.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... "Faith" is not the basis of a philosophy!!

Tell it to the Pope.

[monkboon]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's rubbish. Even the observation of your body is internal to awareness. So is the observation of "other people".
You just aren't grasping any of this.

Don't mistake disagreement for misunderstanding. I grasp what you tell us of your philosophy. I'm merely telling you it's bunk. My cup of vinegar is not a part of me. My observation of it is. Don't confuse the observation with the observed. It's the same mistake you have made from the beginning. It presumes, rather than confirms, that reality is an illusion, which you have yet to prove.

[espritch]

The question in the poll was poorly worded. Science isn't a basis for a philosophy. It is based on a philosophy. This philosophy (naturalism) includes certain basic assumptions that can't actually be proven; such as, for instance, the assumption that the universe actually exists outside of our own minds and the assumption that we can actually learn something about this external universe based on our observations of it.

It is these basic assumptions that Lifegazer seems to have a problem with. What he fails to understand is that all philosophies are based on certain unprovable assumption. The famous chestnut "I think, therefore I am" isn't really a proof of anything. It is a statement of an assumption. It might be more accurately stated as "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am." ultimately, the value of a philosophy can't be judged on the provability of it's fundamental assumptions (since they are all equally unprovable), but rather on it's usefulness. The assumptions of solipsism (Lifegazer's apparent preferred assumptions) lead to an intellectual dead end and are no more provable than those of naturalism. Naturalism, at least, provides us a means to better understand the universe as we perceive it.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Please correct me if I´m wrong, but if, as epepke wrote, when building a philosophy one "start from assumptions or basic principles, assign truth values to them, and build up using some forms of logic", wouldn´t it be the correct next step to test it against avaliable information, that usually comes from science?

Well, you're not wrong as such, but you're not exactly right either. The exact methodology of philosophy is as much a subject of philosophy as anything else in the discipline, in fact, and there are plenty of reasons to consider that construal to be a very iffy one. (For instance, what you've described sounds like a good way to do formal logic, but it's highly questionable when it comes to ethics.) Recourse to intuitions in various cases is an important part of philosophy, but it's also a highly dangerous one since intuitions are only, well, intuitions....

Is this is so, I guess it would be correct to state that science is a base to a philosophy (at least nowdays). On the other hand, consider a philosophy that does not do so, remaining untested....

While it's fair to say that any philosophic position that makes it impossible to do something that clearly we are doing has a distinct problem, that's really the only way in which we can speak of science being a basis for philosophy. After all, science must accept a variety of assumptions in order to do anything at all that we would accept as inquiry, and cannot return results that tell against those assumptions (imagine an experiment that falsified the (broadly construed) scientific method). These assumptions and methods, then, are valid subjects of philosophic inquiry. Furthermore, I should note, any scientific theory that fails on philosophic grounds (for instance, contains a contradiction or relies on a critical equivocation in order to return positive results, or that sort of thing) automatically fails as a scientific theory.

The famous chestnut "I think, therefore I am" isn't really a proof of anything. It is a statement of an assumption.

It isn't really either, honestly. "I think" is a statement that cannot be thought without being true, which means that - as doubting is considered a type of thinking - it's a statement that cannot be doubted (because doubting the statement "I am doubted" would be contradictory). Descartes doesn't start from "I think", rather he concludes that it's something he cannot sensibly doubt (he starts by coming up with a method that involves doubting anything he can doubt, and seeing what constitutes an undoubteable foundation). There are various problems with his method, certainly, but very few people have argued that one can doubt that one is capable of doubting.

Finally, in response to epepke, I think you're making a very odd statement when you say:
Anyway, science is robust in terms of ignorance or uncertainty, whereas most philosophy is rather fragile. A scientific chain of logic where one term is changed from 100% to 99%, or "infinite" versus "really, really big" can still work, while most philosophical positions fall apart if this is so.

Is it reasonable, do you think, to compare science-as-a-whole to any particular philosophic position? After all, any particular scientific hypothesis is pretty fragile - or at least ideally so for testing purposes. If you want to compare various theories which have to stand up to a barrage of experiments designed to falsify them (most of which, again ideally, do end up falsified) to a various philosophic arguments or theories which have to stand up to a barrage of other arguments designed to disprove them or at the very least provide substantial reason to consider them false (most of which do end up being rejected), then you're welcome to do that - but that wouldn't exactly give you as substantial a difference any more. I'm not sure why when it comes to science that feature is a positive feature and when applied to philosophy it's a negative one.

Also:

1) Observation that it works, as you mentioned.
2) The idea that the only real test of a hypothesis is observation or experiment
3) Feynman's characterization of science as a "satisfactory philosophy of ignorance"

However, there are a couple of problems. The first is that it is different from those things that are generally approved of by philosophers these days. 1 and 2 are likely to elicit a response of "empiricism is dead, you loser" or maybe "logical positivism is dead, you loser" or something like that.

I should note just from the get go that there are valid reasons to consider (1) and (2) problematic. A reason (1) might be considered problematic is that evaluating whether or not science "works" involves determining exactly what it means for science to "work" (does it mean converging on truth, or higher predictive power, for instance - and can one of those two strictly be said to imply the other?). Certain views of what it means to say that science works are overly naive, in fact, which shouldn't surprise anyone familliar with, say, the view that science reveals the natural law of the universe as put there by God and blah blah blah....

Secondly, (2) is downright false, because there are plenty of other real tests that we put on hypotheses. As noted above, any hypothesis that blatantly fails to pass philosophic muster is a bad one(try to devise an experiment that would falsify a logical contradiction). Also there are various principles involving parsimony that are not based on any observations as such and which serve as criteria on which to evaluate hypotheses.

Now, none of the things I've said above demonstrate anything wrong with science, but it is important to remember that it's very easy to take a naive view of things that can be quite misleading at times.

[crocodile deathroll]

Yes of course it can because science in synomomous to "natural philosophy" The study of nature and the physical universe before the advent of modern science, period.

CDR

[AtheistArchon]

- This thread has been horribly spoiled already by insane/woo gobbeldygook, but I thought I'd mention one thing that seems interesting to me...

- Philosophy, historically, has advanced as science advances. Core epistemology aside (and we must brush it aside before the question becomes meaningful), we rule out philosophical hypotheses with scientific observation(s) all the time. The big philosophical questions nobody can anser right now, like "where did the universe come from", aren't going to simply answer themselves with deep application from a dedicated mind. Instead, they will rely upon empirical data we discover via science.

- Sure, I think science has enough in it to support a foundational philosophy, as long as we don't go overboard with it, and as long as we can demonstrate the fundamentals behind the scientific method (lifegazer isn't going to be running through any brick walls any time soon, for instance).