Is there any way to coax a scientific minded person to think or discuss things in a more philosophical manner, or do they think all philosophers are "delusional and ridiculous?"

Just wondering.

All scientific-minded people are not the same. All philosophically-minded people are not the same. One can be neither, either, or both.

There are some scientists who may have a distain for some kinds of philosophy but not others. Science and philosophy both depend upon logical constructs. There are several kinds of logic as well. The most common negative view of philosophy I have seen coming from not only scientists but also other philosophers involves metaphysics/psuedoscience.

All well-versed and understood scientists and philosophers alike should despise fallacy being touted as though it were valid or fact.

Thanks for you comments.

I've always been extremely both.

I move back and forth between these two "discilines" quite freely. So much so that it confuses many people, unfortunately.

I love to mix them up and consider the philosophical implications of what we have physically observed in the sciences and extend those idea beyond those limitations. I have no problem keeping track in my own mind which is which because I've been working like this my entire life.

Logic does indeed change between these disciplines. Because logic is entirely dependent upon the fundamental premises that are under consideration.

For example, in scientific thinking one should be restricted solely by what one can physically 'measure'. After all, that's the criteria of that discipline.

However, in pure philosophy it's perfectly acceptable to begin with something as abstract as "I think therefore I am". Or, as I perfer to consider it, "I am aware, therefore I am".

To science that makes no sense because science can't measure "awareness" in a direct way. All "awareness" in science is necessarily a "subjective" view. It cannot be measured "objectively". My awareness is different from your awareness and so we can't even get 'repeatability' which is important to the scientific method.

Science can't say diddly squat about "love" for example.

However, we all know that "love" is a very profound subjective experience that only each individual can assess for themselves. We can't even know if we all experience love in the same way or that it means the same thing to any of us. It not something that can be quantified objectively.

People who dismiss 'emotions' as being 'illogical' are acking like the Star Trek character, Spock. Like as if they have no clue about human emotions or they dismiss them as being irrelevent.

From my point of view, since I experience these emotions then they must be part of "reality", and since "reality" is the concept I'm considering it would be 'illogical' to dismiss such things.

How can we logically consider any concept whilst simultaneously dismissing important and obvious components of it?

To restrict logic to only that which can be objectively pinned down requires an arbitary asumption and premise that subjective "reality" is irrelevant.

But why should it be?

If we're going to consider reality, why not consider all of reality. Why restrict it, or limit it, to arbitrary assumptions that ignore subjective reality?

That's ludicous IMHO.

In anything, there are probably aspects of reality that go beyond what we can even be sure of subjectively.

Look at the recent scientific discovery of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Here we are dicovering supposedly 'objective' things that we didn't even realize exist. The same could potentially be true of hidden dimensions, and parallel universes.

I think the objective approach to reality has already shot itself in its own foot. Not to imply that it's useless. But rather to recognize that it's insane to ask anyone to restrict themselves to only considering what can be objectively verified. Our current "objective philosophy called science" has already revealed to us that it's far from complete.

Why be restricted by something that has clearly shown us that it's incomplete and nowhere near able to describe all of reality?

Use it as a springboard and jump off into the possiblities. But don't allow it to become an anchor that drags us down and drowns us in a sea of objectivity.

We are subjective beings. That should be our first and foremost observation.

Honestly, you never cease to amaze me with the fluidity of your thoughts -- so fee and all-embracing -- wonderful!

... If logical proof fails, the answer must be most Illogical!!!
A real scientist cannnot help but embrace the phillosophy!

ummmm no

I worked extensively with PhD's in Chemistry and Spectroscopy and Physics and Optical scientists

and all of them were well versed in philosophic thought

well i'm scientific minded to the max and yet i adhere to the philosphy of humanism. indeed i strive to live my life with humanism's moral and ethecial precepts in mind. in my experience i've concluded that it is those who are of a spiritual or faithful mindedness that often refuse to contemplate scientific understanding. they often remain close minded to anything that is contrary to their beliefs. those that will not let go of a religious or spiritual concept in spite of evedence that supports an alternative concept, scientific or otherwise, are indeed delusional as phsychiatry defines the term. not my opinion but it is the diagnosis.

They probably aren't all hard-core anti-spiritualists either.

This is what I keep trying to tell people. I've been a scientist all my life yet I'm not anti-spiritual.

I personally don't believe that most of the genuinely prominent respected scientists are anti-spiritual. On the contrary I think many of them are spiritually-minded. Clearly Einstein was.

I feel that the people Jeanniebean is referring to are the half-educated scientific-wannabes who spend their days on a dating site forum attempting to hold science up as somehow supporting anti-spiritual beliefs.

I've never heard this kind of rhetoric coming from real scientists. In fact, most of the scientists I knew personally in the workplace tended to believe in the Eastern Mystical views of pantheism, Buddhism, and Taoism, all of which support a spiritual view of life.

So these people who try to pass science off as implying a non-spiritual nature to reality, most likely simply don't understand these Eastern Mystical views of spirituality. They are hung up on attempting to disprove the Zeus-like gods. And they can't get past that.

Exactly! Only the Real scientist can appreciate the limitations of the Humanity in regards to the Spititual capabilities. The core religions -- Buddhism, Judaism and Taoism -- had appeared long before our predescessors could actually comprehend their true essence (which has been irrevocably(?) lost in the depths of ages...) The only matter that's penetrated through the ages is the Dogma! (which, obviously, is deservedly rejected by science)

Can you give some examples? ("they often remain close minded to anything that is contrary to their beliefs..)

(Of course there is the old standby, evolution vs. God created man. But that is obvious.)

But I find that scientific minded people are more closed minded when it comes to some of the things I have been considering might be true.

I find that same problem with scientists being often closed minded to anything contrary to what is not accepted and 'proven' under their standards.

James said:



Yes I have noticed that about you. Those are two of your more dominant personalities. (I can see more.)

It does not confuse me though, as I have many personalities. (I call them my little psyches.)

In you I see the scientist, the hierophant, the musician and poet, the philosopher, the romantic, the artist, the pessimist, the little boy, and others.

We are dividing within ourselves and we need to nurture each aspect or psyche within us to feel fulfilled. That is what I try to do.

yeah none of em were "anti" spiritualist

some are dedicated born again christian and found all the science to just reinforce their belief in well craftfed design

and some were Chinese nationals (here on visa) who had their own vision of spirituality

and some were atheists who had no real view on spirituality

the difference was that they are all scientists and capable of considering another persons view objectively and we could discuss philosophy and science without anyone feeling threatened. there was NEVER any kind of heated arguments like there is on here. Because they could consider another persons view without feeling like their own view was threatened

its as you said the "half educated" who are insecure in their own beliefs who feel threated by others beliefs

I take it back

there WERE heated arguments

but usually over football

everybody dance now do do da da da do do

If a none believer, believes their a none believer, don't they believe?

only the god fearing have that conflict. an evolutionary biologist does not even consider that god might have created man.



well i would never begin to suggest how other "scientific minded people" might think. can only say how i think. with that in mind, what do you consider that i have closed my mind to? as i believe nothing to be proven as fact i obviously must be open to the idea that anything is possible no? i do find that some of what you consider might be true as highly implausible but you as well find at least some scientific theories as nonsense do you not? other than disagreeing with a few on what is and is not scientific methodology and a few concepts such as which way a toilet flushes in sydney i think i've called less people wrong than anybody here. i only consider myself a professional authority in the field of aviation which gives me a pretty good understanding of aerodynamics but i'd never call myself a scientist. you use the term "scientific minded" and i'll assume that you would call me such. as regards the science of physics and specifically aerodynamics i will agree with that assessment. outside of that area i'm simply not trained and my scientific mindedness is restricted to my readings and experiences.



i simply find it difficult if not impossible to comment on such overly broad and arbitrary claims. what "scientists" are we talking about here specifically? i'm familiar with many. which ones?

mushrooms can make any one philosophical :P

They say all mathematicians are philosophers but not all philosophers are mathematicians . Science is based on logic and therefore scientists are good philosophers . .

I dunno about that but they sure make me drive off of the road

You can be a good scientist or a good philosopher but you have a bad character . Science and philosophy are no guarantee to have good men and good women .