Science, as a discipline, is contained in, and contained by, Philosophy.
If you have some argument, or some reference that says otherwise, bring it on.

From some posts here and there that I’ve seen, this may be in question, so I am opening up a discussion.

Philosophy gave birth to Science, this is a commonly recognized statement of fact. Philosophers became scientists in their lifetime, and retained the qualities of Philosopher that Lead them into Science.
The early Scientists were, more accurately, Philosopher-Scientists.
It is also generally recognized that Philosophy gave birth to all of he other major disciplines as well.

In the case of Science, it may be a nucleus, a hub of great knowledge, but it is contained within the cell walls of Philosophy.
It makes no advances, without the guidance and approval of Philosophy.

Science does not tell Philosophy what constitutes knowledge, Epistemology (branch of Philosophy) tells Science what constitutes knowledge. Yes, they work together in a symbiotic relationship, but Epistemology is indispensible to Science.

Scientist-Philosophers, and Philosopher-Scientists, determine what constitutes ‘science’, and what is ‘pseudoscience’.

Science alone cannot now, nor probably in any future time, determine when “human life” begins.
This is a question only Philosophy can answer. It may never have an answer that satisifies all persons, but all persons will have an answer, provided by Philosophy.
We know some say it is at the moment of conception, some say months later, and some say even before conception.
In all probability Science will never, with its own tools, be able to determine what constitutes ‘human life’.
Only Philosophy can do that.

Our very being, our humanity, is not an issue Science can begin to deal with. The body, yes, the quality that makes us ‘human’, no.

Science alone, has no moral or ethical values. Moral and Ethics are dictated to Science, by those branches of Philosophy.
Individual scientists derive their own morals and values, not from science, but from some philosophy of morals and ethics, often a religion.
Each branch of Science has its own governing boards, that dictate what moral and ethical guidelines will be tolerated, by professionals.

Science pursues knowledge, and common vivisections of the human body would be a great way to increase knowledge, but Science is not permitted to do this, it is constrained by Morals and Ethics. Only very modified, strictly controlled, for the good of the patient, partial vivisections, and no more, are allowed.

Logic, is a branch of Philosophy.
Every scientist that uses Logic to advance their endeavors, is beholding to Philosophy, in the form of Logic.
Logic (Philosophy) creates the rules of Logic, clear and critical thinking, not Science.

Philosophy reigns in, controls, Science, with Morals and Ethics.
It guides it with Epistemology and Logic.

Science provides information, Philosophy provides answers. In many cases, Philosophy also provides the Questions.

It might be that no one here disagrees that Philosophy is the parent, before, now, and always, and Science is the child.

In that case, nevermind.

Science, as a discipline, is contained in, and contained by, Philosophy.
If you have some argument, or some reference that says otherwise, bring it on.

I'm bored so I might as well try! So we have two claims:

A: "the discipline of science is contained in philosophy"

and

B: "the discipline of science is contained by philosophy"

I'll see and respond to what you have to say, then add my own thoughts at the end.


Philosophy gave birth to Science, this is a commonly recognized statement of fact. Philosophers became scientists in their lifetime, and retained the qualities of Philosopher that Lead them into Science.
The early Scientists were, more accurately, Philosopher-Scientists.
It is also generally recognized that Philosophy gave birth to all of he other major disciplines as well.

First, I might dispute the notion that "philosophy gave birth to science" depending on your definition of "philosophy".

Second, even if we grant this claim, it isn't clear that it provides any evidence for the claims A or B. How does the intellectual history of science tell us what it is or is not contained in or contained by?


In the case of Science, it may be a nucleus, a hub of great knowledge, but it is contained within the cell walls of Philosophy.
It makes no advances, without the guidance and approval of Philosophy.

I'm not so sure. Only some very abstruse areas of science are ordinarily commented on in profitable ways by philosophers. Most scientific work uses a definite method, is philosophically unreflective, and chugs along just fine. General philosophy of science comments on and clarifies the practices of scientists, but there is little evidence that ordinary scientific practice requires the "guidance and approval" of philosophy.


Science does not tell Philosophy what constitutes knowledge, Epistemology (branch of Philosophy) tells Science what constitutes knowledge. Yes, they work together in a symbiotic relationship, but Epistemology is indispensible to Science.

Again, not clear at all. Epistemology does not tell science what constitutes knowledge. Epistemology tries to figure out what knowledge is, using paradigmatic instances of knowledge (incl. instances of scientific knowledge) as data points from which they construct their theories.

A good analogy could be drawn within science. A wildlife biologist studying bird migration patterns is studying physical phenomena, but does not need to talk to atomic physicists in order to get guidance and approval, even though birds are made up of atoms. The levels of abstraction are just totally different, and each can go on without much input from the other. Sure, a theory of bird migration that contradicted the established truths of physics would be a problem, just as a scientific theory that contradicted the established truths of philosophy would be a problem, but that in itself isn't enough, I think, to say that science is contained in and by philosophy.


Scientist-Philosophers, and Philosopher-Scientists, determine what constitutes ‘science’, and what is ‘pseudoscience’.

But not in ways that inform the practice of most scientists.


Science alone cannot now, nor probably in any future time, determine when “human life” begins.

What is the evidence for this claim?


Science alone, has no moral or ethical values. Moral and Ethics are dictated to Science, by those branches of Philosophy.
Individual scientists derive their own morals and values, not from science, but from some philosophy of morals and ethics, often a religion.
Each branch of Science has its own governing boards, that dictate what moral and ethical guidelines will be tolerated, by professionals.

There is no evidence that most people derive their own morals and ethics from philosophy. Sure, critical reflection on morality and ethics is a branch of philosophy, but that doesn't mean that people derive their morality from philosophy. Also, religion and philosophy are different things.


Logic, is a branch of Philosophy.
Every scientist that uses Logic to advance their endeavors, is beholding to Philosophy, in the form of Logic.
Logic (Philosophy) creates the rules of Logic, clear and critical thinking, not Science.

I don't see how philosophy creates the rules of logic. Philosophy discovers the rules of logic. And it seems to me rather unfair to insist that anything that uses logic is therefore somehow contained by the discipline of philosophy. Most of the sort of logic that scientists deal with is not philosophically sophisticated. In fact, its the sort of logic that was a norm before the birth of the discipline of philosophy.

What you are doing is rather like insisting that philosophy is contained in science because science is the study of nature and if there was no nature there would be no philosophers around to philosophize. Surely you see how this is an unfair point?


I think its manifestly true that scientists try to follow the norms of reason and morality, and that reflection on reason and morality is philosophy. It is also true that an established truth of science should not contradict an established truth of philosophy (the flip-side of that is true too). But I don't think thats enough to establish your claims. The various disciplines of science go on and progress just fine without much philosophical reflection.

FaureI'm bored so I might as well try! So we have two claims:

A: "the discipline of science is contained in philosophy"

and

B: "the discipline of science is contained by philosophy"

I'll see and respond to what you have to say, then add my own thoughts at the end.




First, I might dispute the notion that "philosophy gave birth to science" depending on your definition of "philosophy".You might, so then I would refer you to these othere definitions you seem to recognice.
So we can agree that by some definitions of 'philosophy', it gave birth to science.


Second, even if we grant this claim, it isn't clear that it provides any evidence for the claims A or B. How does the intellectual history of science tell us what it is or is not contained in or contained by?Well, it should not surprise you that I make my statements on the intellectual history of Philosophy.
It is common knowledge that children often turn their backs on parents.




I'm not so sure. Only some very abstruse areas of science are ordinarily commented on in profitable ways by philosophers. Most scientific work uses a definite method, is philosophically unreflective, and chugs along just fine. General philosophy of science comments on and clarifies the practices of scientists, but there is little evidence that ordinary scientific practice requires the "guidance and approval" of philosophy.You are not sure, undecided.
I am decided.
Just too much wiggle room here to really reply to.
All in all, most of your replies make these vague statements that there might be reason to doubt, and that means there is reason to not doubt.




Again, not clear at all. Epistemology does not tell science what constitutes knowledge. Epistemology tries to figure out what knowledge is, using paradigmatic instances of knowledge (incl. instances of scientific knowledge) as data points from which they construct their theories.It is epistemology that define what constitues knowledge. It does more than 'try to figure out'.
Scientist use epistemplogy to decide what they will consider knowledge.
If science claims an Oracle has spoken to a league of Scientists and that will now be the basis of scientifc knowledge, it is Philosophy who will call them to task to show how a supernatural oracle is a sorce of scientific knowledge.


A good analogy could be drawn within science. A wildlife biologist studying bird migration patterns is studying physical phenomena, but does not need to talk to atomic physicists in order to get guidance and approval, even though birds are made up of atoms. The levels of abstraction are just totally different, and each can go on without much input from the other. Sure, a theory of bird migration that contradicted the established truths of physics would be a problem, just as a scientific theory that contradicted the established truths of philosophy would be a problem, but that in itself isn't enough, I think, to say that science is contained in and by philosophy.Yes, analogies, good for demonstrating what a persons means, by way of example, but the weakest form of argument, and always fallacious.



[/quote]But not in ways that inform the practice of most scientists.[/quote] No need to verify this for me.
Not relevant.
The practice of most scientists is to follow a religion, also not relevant.




What is the evidence for this claim?Future expectations based on prior performance.
The term 'human being' has to do with values, and Science is value free.




There is no evidence that most people derive their own morals and ethics from philosophy. Sure, critical reflection on morality and ethics is a branch of philosophy, but that doesn't mean that people derive their morality from philosophy.When people derive morals and ethics, they are, by definition, using morals and ethics.
I certainly did not imply that they study other morals and ethics or label these beliefs as philosophy.
The act of deriving, is the process of philosophy.


Also, religion and philosophy are different things.I do not see that I implied any other thing.
There are many systems to derive moral and ethics, and the most common of these is religion.




I don't see how philosophy creates the rules of logic. Philosophy discovers the rules of logic. And it seems to me rather unfair to insist that anything that uses logic is therefore somehow contained by the discipline of philosophy. Most of the sort of logic that scientists deal with is not philosophically sophisticated. In fact, its the sort of logic that was a norm before the birth of the discipline of philosophy.Logic is a branch of philosophy.
If we say that rules of logic are 'facts', and that Logic discovers them, we also have to say that they need to be stated, and Logic creates these statements.

Logic is a division of philosophy.
No philosophy, no Logic. How can it be any other way?
You seem to be saying the roots of logic preceded before the established disicipline of Philosophy was formalized.
Logic is a part of Philosophy, I've never heard that questioned.


What you are doing is rather like insisting that philosophy is contained in science because science is the study of nature and if there was no nature there would be no philosophers around to philosophize. Surely you see how this is an unfair point?This is just, odd. I do not see the comparison.




I think its manifestly true that scientists try to follow the norms of reason and morality, and that reflection on reason and morality is philosophy. It is also true that an established truth of science should not contradict an established truth of philosophy (the flip-side of that is true too). But I don't think thats enough to establish your claims. The various disciplines of science go on and progress just fine without much philosophical reflection."...without much philosophical reflection."
Just a little philosophical reflection, I take it by your words.
I suppose you mean that most scientists do not need to do much philosophical reflection.
Well, that is a good thing, as it is best left to the professionals.
Philosophers discuss what it means to be a 'human being", since science cannot.
Philosophy defines common place human vivisection to be immoral, and science follows suit. Left to its own divices, human vivisection would be a daily occurance in science, for the value it could provide.