[daptaq]

Science is a part of philosophy, and at the same time it extends it. You're assuming that philosophy is only idealist guessing, which is wrong.

I mean, you wouldn't say that "Large areas of science are routinely demolished" by newer science, even though strictly speaking it's true, and you'd therefore give up on science as a whole?

(And if I'd really want to be mean, I'd ask you if science has ever even proven the "real world" exists or that science is true, but I think you got my point.)

[lz400]

Science regularly demolishes science too, of course. Scientists don't have a problem with thatm they just move on. But in my opinion philosophers do.

I know philosophy is extremely rigorous. Science is fiddly, it works in approximations. Philosophers hate ad hocs postulates like dark matter or cosmological constants. They hate not knowing how certain things work. That's part of the problem. They need to apply their rigor to theories that have the chance of being false.

[daptaq]

That's an extreme generalisation. Yes, there are philosphers and philosophies that would reject these things, but it's absurd to assume that all do.

You also have to remember that science operates within it's own framework, and assumes concepts of truth that are accepted within this community, such as the scientific method to gain knowledge. But these are presumed to be true, without anyone having had proven them.

Philosophy on the other hand, as a more general subject, even questions these frameworks and has to operate without any pre-given framework. A Platonist won't be shunned by a scientific discovery, since it isn't a threat to it's epistemological framework.

Therefore I say that science is part of philosophy, but this doesn't mean it's wrong or bad. Everyday life proves it's helpfulness. One just has to keep in mind, that there is no proof it's ultimately true, and that all objections are "appeals to emotion". Followers of Scientism, even though they wouldn't say it themselves, do this, dogmatically believing that they are the true way and that's the problem everyone has with them. (I'm not saying it's better when Platonists or anyone else does it, but the others are more common nowadays)

[lz400]

Not all do, but I'd say there's a real disconnect between the disciplines when there should be more teamwork.

If Philosophy is going to argue that the scientific method doesn't work, or that the world doesn't exist, we can't trust our senses or stuff like that, go ahead. Has there been any practical advancement on this line of thinking in the last 50 years? do you envision that the scientific method will be revised by anything discovered in philosophy?

[daptaq]

>I'd say there's a real disconnect between the disciplines when there should be more teamwork

Could you explain what you mean with this?

>If Philosophy is going to argue that the scientific method doesn't work

The critique isn't as blunt as you make it out to be. Philosophers argue that the scientific method isn't the ultimate epistemological tool to find out everything and to understand all there is to know.

>that the world doesn't exist >we can't trust our senses or stuff like that

Just as a side note, this hasn't been disproven, since it's beyond the reach of science. Science, as a materialist/physicalist philosophy presumes itself to be true, while at they same time limiting itself.

>Has there been any practical advancement on this line of thinking in the last 50 years?

What do you mean with "practical advancement"? For one to ask or answer this question seriously, one has to take a lot of things for granted and such as concepts of "practical" or "advancement". And what's so special about the last 50 years?

>do you envision that the scientific method will be revised by anything discovered in philosophy?

Philosophy as a discipline isn't science, you don't "discover" things, since that presumes these truths to be out there, ready to be found, which doesn't mean that people don't search for them.

But besides that, what do you mean with "revised"? The critique isn't as already mentioned, that the scientific method isn't right (it most certainly is a very good tool regarding science itself), but that it can't be the only one, used to find out everything. That's just naive positivism.

[lz400]

Science also doesn't rely only on the scientific method. It relies mainly on maths and logic. Here both philosophy and science meet.

What I mean is that every time this debate happens it's the same a lot of "what do you mean by that?" And "define achievement". My thesis is that as a tool to gain knowledge about the natural world philosophy is not helpful anymore because the parts that are useful, logic and argumental rigor, are integrated in science already. Philosophy is still useful in ethics and morals but not useful in epistemology and metaphysics unless they follow modern science, which very few do.

[daptaq]

Well I don't disagree with your thesis in principle, I'm just adding that science is part of philosophy, as it too seeks to find out what is true and what not. And after all, logic and mathematics come from philosophy - there is no clear distinction between the two.

If you are talking about idealist philosophy, and are asking yourself how much their theories on the true substance of the world has contributed to the general wellbeing of the average human being, then I already said, that most people would agree that the products of science, as a materialist philosophy, are more helpful.