Science & Philosophy, do they ever get along? (70)
jbibiza: But are there, in fact, any actual scientific facts or only that which we perceive to be a scientific fact?
Ok... I´ll stop now. Philosophy is fun.
Ok... I´ll stop now. Philosophy is fun.
If a scientific fact were alone in a forest and it fell, would it make any sound?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Here's another question now...
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: Here's another question now...
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
That's an excellent point, Sweet. My sons were recruited into the Gifted classes ONLY after they'd scored high on math tests and an IQ test (which surely doesn't contain any humanities questions!
)This is due in large part to writing/humanities/art being considered "subjective," as opposed to mathematical skills or IQ tests (the latter are actually as subjective as anything else, since the tests are designed to measure skills in what the test-makers consider to require intelligence).
I think it's more or less self-evident that intelligence or being gifted consists of many different things.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ambrose2007: That's an excellent point, Sweet. My sons were recruited into the Gifted classes ONLY after they'd scored high on math tests and an IQ test (which surely doesn't contain any humanities questions!)
This is due in large part to writing/humanities/art being considered "subjective," as opposed to mathematical skills or IQ tests (the latter are actually as subjective as anything else, since the tests are designed to measure skills in what the test-makers consider to require intelligence).
I think it's more or less self-evident that intelligence or being gifted consists of many different things.
This is due in large part to writing/humanities/art being considered "subjective," as opposed to mathematical skills or IQ tests (the latter are actually as subjective as anything else, since the tests are designed to measure skills in what the test-makers consider to require intelligence).
I think it's more or less self-evident that intelligence or being gifted consists of many different things.
But this is where I beg to differ with the powers that be. While some are more knowledgeable in the mathematical/scientific areas, it surely doesn't make them any more intelligent than any of our great writers or philosophers. Don't you agree? Why should IQ/intelligence be based only in these areas?
------ This thread is Archived ------
DazzleYou: I am scientific on many things, but I am also philosophical about many things.
I am smart enough to know that there are many things that we don't have figured out and may never figure out. So rather than refuse to take anything by faith because I do not have it concretely figured out in front of me, I don't worry about it.
I am smart enough to know that there are many things that we don't have figured out and may never figure out. So rather than refuse to take anything by faith because I do not have it concretely figured out in front of me, I don't worry about it.
That is my view of things too!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
And to add a few more things i think it perfectly consistent to be scientific and to study philosophy at the same time.
But we have to consider something very important. When science and philosphy have seperated? The answer to this question can be quite lenghty but it seems that in the old days were trying to make progress in science by thinking which of the numerous ideas was valid. So theoretical arguments were taking place about which of the theories seemed more "logical". At some point people understood that it is fruitless to argue about which theory is right. They argued that every one of them should be put to the test and the one which explains experimental data the best, that is the most valid. This point of view made the rapid progress of science possible but still i cannot regard a scientist as a "complete" person if he doesn't know nothign about humanities, fine arts or philosophy or something similar. It seems that one sided people are not very interesting at all. And also, it seems that the most intersting scientists to talk to is the ones who like to delve deeper into philospohy because the find and inner urge to do it.
But we have to consider something very important. When science and philosphy have seperated? The answer to this question can be quite lenghty but it seems that in the old days were trying to make progress in science by thinking which of the numerous ideas was valid. So theoretical arguments were taking place about which of the theories seemed more "logical". At some point people understood that it is fruitless to argue about which theory is right. They argued that every one of them should be put to the test and the one which explains experimental data the best, that is the most valid. This point of view made the rapid progress of science possible but still i cannot regard a scientist as a "complete" person if he doesn't know nothign about humanities, fine arts or philosophy or something similar. It seems that one sided people are not very interesting at all. And also, it seems that the most intersting scientists to talk to is the ones who like to delve deeper into philospohy because the find and inner urge to do it.
------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: But this is where I beg to differ with the powers that be. While some are more knowledgeable in the mathematical/scientific areas, it surely doesn't make them any more intelligent than any of our great writers or philosophers. Don't you agree? Why should IQ/intelligence be based only in these areas?
It shouldn't be.
------ This thread is Archived ------
A graduate degree in any Scientific discipline is still considered a PhD...and what does the Ph stand for?
Philosopher's Doctorate.
But to me, its just Piled Higher and Deeper....
Philosopher's Doctorate.
But to me, its just Piled Higher and Deeper....
------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: Here's another question now...
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
Gifted program in my area/schools works a little differently then yours, it sounds like. Students that excel in math go into a math gifted program; those that excel in creative writing are put into that gifted program. The schools here are trying to reinforce the subjects that the students excel in instead of trying to do a broad spectrum.
------ This thread is Archived ------
woody636: Gifted program in my area/schools works a little differently then yours, it sounds like. Students that excel in math go into a math gifted program; those that excel in creative writing are put into that gifted program. The schools here are trying to reinforce the subjects that the students excel in instead of trying to do a broad spectrum.
Specialization isn't what its cracked up to be. I think they should be given equal weight. If your talents lie in math, by all means, emphasize it, but don't let the other aspects of education be neglected.
Who needs a mathematician who doesn't know who Fermat is? The history of a subject is just as important as its mechanics...
------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: If you're of a scientific mind & the one you're interested in/dating/married to is of a philosophical mind, do you think you would be able to relate? In your opinion, would it lead to some great conversations? Or perhaps some huge arguments?
Yes...it is all about perception sweetoven which the two of you can build about one another. Like everythig alse in life. Wish you the best
------ This thread is Archived ------
I agree. They don't neglect other subjects, just help reinforce the one or many that the student excels in. Let the student move forward at an faster pace then normal according to his abilities.
------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: I understand what you're saying. The thing is that normally, if you're more scientific, you usually want concrete proof. The philosophical person will give theories, which sometimes can't be proven, but are, at times, taken for fact. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
there is a whole lot of ,so called, science that is theory as well------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: Here's another question now...
If science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
well, if your major is philosophy....you can set around and philosophically wonder, why you don't have a jobIf science & philosophy work hand-in-hand, which I believe they do, then why does it seem that giftedness in education is based more on a student's knowledge of scientific subjects than on the philosophical ones?
Example: I excelled in subjects such as Humanities, English/Literature, Creative Writing, Art, etc. I had to try harder at Mathematical subjects, Science, etc.
Based upon my grades, I couldn't make it into the "gifted" classes. Is that quite fair?
------ This thread is Archived ------
jlw45: there is a whole lot of ,so called, science that is theory as well
The majority of those "theories" are consistent with observable data though...we may not know why it works, but as long as it does, I have no problems with it...
(In the 1600 & 1700's Science was known as "Natural Philosophy"...nothing has changed but the rhetoric on both sides.)
------ This thread is Archived ------
woody636: I agree. They don't neglect other subjects, just help reinforce the one or many that the student excels in. Let the student move forward at an faster pace then normal according to his abilities.
That would be nice...I registered off the charts in 4th grade in both verbal and math skills...and yet, I was required to learn at the same pace as everyone around me...I got bored, started causing trouble....the squeaky wheel gets the grease...they started loading me down with so much extra work it got ridiculous.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Galactic_bodhi: The majority of those "theories" are consistent with observable data though...we may not know why it works, but as long as it does, I have no problems with it...
(In the 1600 & 1700's Science was known as "Natural Philosophy"...nothing has changed but the rhetoric on both sides.)
true enough...as long as there is observable data but, alot of, as i said so called, science is put on a platform to promote certain philosophical views that have no observable data, what-so-ever(In the 1600 & 1700's Science was known as "Natural Philosophy"...nothing has changed but the rhetoric on both sides.)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Galactic_bodhi: That would be nice...I registered off the charts in 4th grade in both verbal and math skills...and yet, I was required to learn at the same pace as everyone around me...I got bored, started causing trouble....the squeaky wheel gets the grease...they started loading me down with so much extra work it got ridiculous.
Yeah, know what you mean. My wife taught here for 20+ years. They would constantly try different approaches for the gifted programs. What they've done now is to settle on "Academies". Math, science, literature, writing, and a few others I can't remember. Seems to be working fairly well; probably means its time for the state to step in and change it again!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
sweetowen: But this is where I beg to differ with the powers that be. While some are more knowledgeable in the mathematical/scientific areas, it surely doesn't make them any more intelligent than any of our great writers or philosophers. Don't you agree? Why should IQ/intelligence be based only in these areas?
A society produces more robots in areas most needed. Artists, writers, philosophers, represent total unconventional forces, the human gurus hate to fight, so they disadvantage them every way possible.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
everything is changing
What I Lack In Vocabulary
1830's Music
How far is too far?
rarotonga
Icebergs Still Around
Nature
Reality Check
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
But are there, in fact, any actual scientific facts or only that which we perceive to be a scientific fact?