Red said:
"You cannot separate the two without hurting them both. "

I totally agree. It is difficult for me to even draw a line between them.

Godzilla vs. King Kong who would win and why?

It would not matter to the natural world. It may not even matter to humanity. It is the battle that matters. The battle constitutes motion, action having both cause and effect. The outcome is simply the effect which will go on to become the cause for other motions and actions.

Human evolution has given us the tools to perceive, question, evaluate and gain knowledge, understanding. Using what we've learned we attempt to use determinism to intercede in the causal to bring about desired effects.

What occurs is of no matter to the Universe, its all just part of the universal emergent process; action, motion, cause and effect.

you have to pick one.

I could not choose, Strange, they are both so lovable.

Its quite simple really.

Science = How?
Philosophy = Why?

If you regard one question more so important then the other then theres your answer.

Philosophy or science? which side to take? Imagine for an instant that someone was majoring in both science and philosophy. Why would someone take on such a major course load? Well perhaps i feel that being a master of one will only better my understanding in the other and vice versa.

Yes, philosophy employs logical reasoning. I personally feel that in today's scientific comunity there is a slight shortfall of logical reasoning. I hear frequently of scientists fighting for their one truth to be the only right answer, when logic has shown me that within the mysteries of life lies multiple truths. Yet there-in lies the fault of the term "truth" most truths are not pure nor whole.

Think of it this way. The statement "the sky is blue" and the statement "the sky is not blue" are both true. yet both are partial truths even considdering they are opposites. So in essence what is true is relative to the individual's thought process and definiton of "the sky".

Whether or not philosophy is more important than science, or science more than philosophy, is relative entirely to the one asking themselve that question.

The scientist can argue that the persuit of science is all that matters to better the life of mankind. All the while the philosopher can cry out for the persuit of knowledge through logical thought. Yet in reality both are seeking "knowledge" in one form or another. Who is to say that one is more defining or important than the other. Logical knowledge of good vs. bad or true vs. false is a science in itself is it not? After all one of the world's greatest philosophers came to be known as the father of science and the scientific method. Aristotle used his logic and observations together to bring about many truths to the world. It is obvious to see he saw both as being equally important and combined them to become a major contributor to both fields.

Whether you wish to know the world through logic or falsifiable proof... you still are seeking knowledge.

I feel both are equally important and should rely upon the skillsets found within each for a greater understanding of everything around us.

Because of this reason i chose to major not in one or the other, but BOTH Physics and Philosophy. Which specific area of physics i will choose is still undecided.

I feel that being well versed in philosophy, and henceforth using the skills and tools i gain from philosophy in the science of physics i can only be that much better prepared to see all sides of an equation.

Right on! Good post PhasmatisDiligo!

PhasmatisDiligo, Bravo for you. After receiving one degree many great men and women have come to the same conclusion as you have and went on to pursue an education in philosophy.

I'm moving more slowly than you, one degree at a time but I intend to complete my education in psychology and continue it in philosophy.

I agree with you and support the great effort you will apply to reaching your goals.

Red

Whcih draws the person moreso to it is more important for an individual, and this must be stressed if a person is to be capable. I think that both really go hand in hand, and ultimately combine into a more satisfying union all the time. Perhaps now the street smart science is still courting the Queen, but the knowledge kindom has been without heirs for too long, and some branching out is called for, however much of a mix-match it is.

Philosophy is a necessity for a rational being: philosophy is the foundation of science, the organizer of man's mind, the integrator of his knowledge, the programmer of his subconscious, the selector of his values. Ayn Rand

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/philosophy.html

She said it better than I ever could.

"Ayn Rand" and "philosophy" are contradictory terms...

"Who is John Galt?"...

Who cares???



The scientific method IS philosophy. Philosophy is the parent, science the child. That is not to say that science is less than philosophy. To quite the contrary, philosophy shows us that we're fallible creatures, science is simply the method which lessens the likelihood for mistakes.