Lecture time

By and large I agree. The philosophy of modern science is such that it can’t really be “wrong” though, hard science observes and records. The conclusions can be wrong, data can be incomplete, but if one observed a correlation between two things or lack of correlation, that is simply what one observed. Of course individuals can lie or perform studies or make theories without earnest too. That sort of shows us the importance of philosophy- if people had a better philosophical and conceptual knowledge of science and approached it as “what is probable, according to these guys…” instead of taking the pieces that suit them and running with them, there’s be a lot less wrong turns in the name of science. To be a scientist is to be unsure. Philosophy however deals in the abstract, that which cannot be objectively quantified or proven. Any good scientist is always unsure, but a good philosopher may be sure or unsure- that is a matter of philosophical debate.

Science seeks to tell the how, how to do something, how some aspect of the universe works. Philosophy seeks the why- the purpose. Without some philosophical concept, all we have is our immediate urges. So I won’t say one is more important than the other, I will say that science and philosophy are similar and worlds apart. Both seek answers, both to some degree rely upon peer review and acceptance, the list can go on.