Philosophy v Physics

[Zippy]

And as a quick quiz, what area of computer science relates directly to philosophy?*

*Gibbon can tell me if my answer's wrong, but I don't think it is.

Artificial Intelligence.

The alternative name of physics is Natural Philosophy. It is impossible to study science without studying ethics (it isn't somewhere Katie Price lives btw )

[Gibbon]

There no reason why science shouldn't be able to lend itself to 'think about' things like ethics and morality or love and beauty. If philosophy were to ever produce anything of value from it's examination of those things, other than a mountain of gibberish hotly disputed by other philosophers, that would be the science, or at least form part of it.

Please in your infinite wisdom explain how one could begin to examine any of ethics and morality or love and beauty in a strictly scientific way?

By this I mean observable, repeatable, measurable and quantifiable ways.

Please seriously look up John locke and his Treatise on Toleration and then tell me it's gibberish.

[TimberWolf]

And as a quick quiz, what area of computer science relates directly to philosophy?*

*Gibbon can tell me if my answer's wrong, but I don't think it is.

I imagine the answer you want is logic, though it might be argued that logic is the domain of mathematics rather than philosophy, and its roots more difficult to disentangle as philosophy was early science. Then the navel gazing started, holding back scientific progress.

[TimberWolf]

Please in your infinite wisdom explain how one could begin to examine any of ethics and morality or love and beauty in a strictly scientific way?

By this I mean observable, repeatable, measurable and quantifiable ways.

Please seriously look up John locke and his Treatise on Toleration and then tell me it's gibberish.

Psychology is one of many likely scientific domains that study and explain those scientifically. Evolution explains the existence of many too. I don't think these are a mystery or outside of the domain of science ,even if they can't yet be quantified because of the number of variables involved in some instances, e.g. love has more than one variable. Much of it is understood though.

[d000hg]

I strongly deny that "much of it is understood". Theories have been advanced to try and explain it, but as the GW sceptics tell you, a theory has to be supported somehow. Theories and papers on this stuff are the kind of thing New Scientist publish alongside other random articles... more suggestions than testable science.

Personally, I feel like scientists are stretching when they start trying to explain emotions through evolution... like they have an agenda to make the facts support what they want to prove. And no, I'm still not a 7-day creationist before someone makes a hilarious quip. Evolutionary processes don't conflict my beliefs... but the concerns I have about Darwinistic validity are greatly amplified as soon as someone mentions Social Darwinism.

[TimberWolf]

I strongly deny that "much of it is understood". Theories have been advanced to try and explain it, but as the GW sceptics tell you, a theory has to be supported somehow. Theories and papers on this stuff are the kind of thing New Scientist publish alongside other random articles... more suggestions than testable science.

Personally, I feel like scientists are stretching when they start trying to explain emotions through evolution... like they have an agenda to make the facts support what they want to prove. And no, I'm still not a 7-day creationist before someone makes a hilarious quip. Evolutionary processes don't conflict my beliefs... but the concerns I have about Darwinistic validity are greatly amplified as soon as someone mentions Social Darwinism.

You think humans, or specifically their emotions, are beyond the realms of science?

[Zippy]

You think humans, or specifically their emotions, are beyond the realms of science?

I do. For the moment anyway.

[kandr]

You think humans, or specifically their emotions, are beyond the realms of science?

What's this got to do with Philosophy?, do you even know what Philosophy is? It's not "emotions of humans" or anything to do with Psychology.

[TimberWolf]

I do. For the moment anyway.

Which suggest you don't, as the question was 'beyond the realms of science', not what's currently known to science.

[Zippy]

Which suggest you don't, as the question was 'beyond the realms of science', not what's currently known to science.

Ah OK. This where it will go downhill a bit. I can only frame my response in terms of what is currently known (or research in the pipeline).None of us can extrapolate to the degree required to answer your question.