科学和哲学有什么区别?
2023-03-27 Natsuo 6139
正文翻译




评论翻译
eorge Harrison
I disagree with most of the answers given.Despite the original name of “natural philosophy”, science has little to do with philosophy, and at best can be considered complementary to philosophy.Let me explain first by way of example.

我不同意给出的大多数答案。尽管科学的原名是“自然哲学”,但它与哲学几乎没有关系,充其量可以被认为是对哲学的补充。让我先举例解释一下。

Aristotle was a philosopher. He thought deeply, mostly in his arm chair I presume, and carefully considered observations made by others (such as the apparent motion of the stars, moon and sun in the sky) at their face value, and came up with very complex explanations (epicycles etc.) that were proven total nonsense by science. Yet he and his philosophies had a profound influence on western civilization. Some say, and I tend to agree, that Aristotle followed by the Catholic Church, set back western civilization by almost 2000 years.

亚里士多德是一位哲学家。我想,他大部分时间都坐在扶手椅上进行了深入思考,并仔细考虑了其他人所做的观察(例如天空中星星、月亮和太阳的视运动)的表面价值,并提出了非常复杂的解释(本轮 等)被科学证明完全是胡说八道。 然而,他和他的哲学对西方文明产生了深远的影响。 有人说,我也倾向于这种观点,亚里士多德之后的天主教会使西方文明倒退了将近 2000 年。

Kepler was a scientist (perhaps the first one) who analyzed the extremely accurate data of the positions of the “wandering stars” (the planets that moved relative to the background of fixed stars) painstakingly taken by Tycho Brahe, and noticed that the motion of the planets actually fitted an ellipse with the sun at one of its foci. This is the scientific method. Open to challenge by anyone bringing in any verifiable data that falsifies the tentative conclusions.

开普勒是一位科学家(也许是第一位),他分析了第谷-布拉赫费尽心思取得的 "游星"(相对于固定恒星背景移动的行星)位置的极其精确的数据,并注意到行星的运动实际上符合一个以太阳为焦点之一的椭圆形。这就是科学的方法。任何人都可以带着任何可验证的数据来挑战,以推翻暂定的结论。

Science is concerned only with the quantitative analysis of obxtive reality, which means analysis of careful measurements made by unbiased observers, and drawing a tentative conclusion that is consistent with all the verifiable data. Since measurements with tools and instruments only work with physical obxts (which includes energy particles like photons), science is also concerned exclusively with physical reality.

科学只关注对客观现实的定量分析,这意味着对无偏见的观察者所做的仔细测量进行分析,并得出与所有可验证数据相一致的暂定结论。由于用工具和仪器进行的测量只对物理物体(包括像光子这样的能量粒子)起作用,科学也只关注物理现实。

Science has no role in people’s feelings, visions and beliefs, which is the domain of philosophy. Religion is a particular subset of philosophy that starts from a belief in some supernatural (unobservable, unmeasurable, unverifiable) entity that allegedly via a certain special human, stipulates certain values and principles to live ones life by, and then adds a long list of rituals and practices to distinguish itself more easily from competing religions. If you actually study religions you will find that the underlying philosophy is very much the same, only the rituals and details differ.

科学对人们的感觉、愿景和信仰没有作用,那是哲学的范畴。宗教是哲学的一个特殊分支,它的出发点是相信一些超自然(无法观察、无法测量、无法证实)的实体,据说是通过某个特殊的人,规定了某些价值观和生活原则,然后增加了一长串的仪式和做法,以使自己更容易与竞争性的宗教区分开。如果你真正研究宗教,你会发现其基本哲学是非常相同的,只是仪式和细节不同。

I am a scientist but I also subscribe to certain philosophies as to how I live my life.
For example, one key philosophy that I believe strongly, in one word, is: MODERATION.

我是一名科学家,但我也赞同某些关于我如何生活的哲学。
例如,一句话,我坚信的一个关键哲学是:适度。

I believe almost anything done in moderation is ok (with a few exceptions like murder etc) while going to extremes (like eating too much first, then jogging to burn the excess calories, or completely stop eating meat or carbs) seems illogical.
Another philosophy (often stipulated by many religions but neglected by their subscribers) I believe and practice is: treating humans and other animals the way I would like to be treated.

我相信几乎任何事情适度地做都是可以的(有几个例外,如谋杀等),而走极端(如先吃得太多,然后慢跑来消耗多余的热量,或完全不吃肉或碳水化合物)似乎不合逻辑。
我相信并实践的另一个理念(许多宗教经常规定,但被其信徒忽视)是:以我希望得到的方式对待人类和其他动物。

I hope I have answered clearly what is see is the difference between science and philosophy.

我希望我已经清楚地回答了什么是科学和哲学之间的区别。

Jay Ace
I would be provocative: there is none. Science is only a branch of philosophy. Let us speak, like Newton, of natural philosophy. In short, you might as well ask for the difference between a man and his legs! A metaphor which also has the advantage of showing that the sciences allow philosophy to be active. But, I would not discard myself and propose to demonstrate my assertion!

我会很有挑战性地说:科学并不是哲学的一个分支。就像牛顿一样,让我们谈论自然哲学。简而言之,这就好比你问一个人和他的腿之间有什么区别!这个比喻也有一个优点,即展示了科学如何使哲学变得积极活跃。但是,我不会自我排除并且会提出证明我的说法的建议!

I) First of all, etymologically, philo is to love and sophia is wisdom, reasoning I would say, but also knowledge, knowledge. Philosophy would therefore be the appetite or the belief (first qualifier: it is a belief!) that if we had all the necessary facts and a sufficient capacity for reasoning we could ... understand. Note that, in fact, philosophy does not define so much "what we will understand" or even "with what facts". It is always contextual: it is an approach, a step, a method: I let you find the term, more or less strong, which best qualifies it from this point of view.

首先,从词源上讲,“philo”指的是爱,“sophia”指的是智慧,推理,但也包括知识。哲学因此被认为是一种追求或信仰(第一个限定词:这是一种信仰!),即如果我们有所有必要的事实和足够的推理能力,我们就能够理解……。需要注意的是,事实上,哲学并没有如此明确定义“我们将会理解什么”甚至“使用哪些事实”。它总是有上下文的:这是一种方法,一种步骤,一种方法:从这个角度来看,您可以找到最好地描述它的术语,或多或少强烈。

II) Ok on these bases, but it's a bit vague, how to proceed? Here again, let's stay on the fundamentals, Socrates, through Plato. I would speak of Socrates, more precisely, the Socrates of Alcibiades major. Socrates crosses paths with Alcibiades who is heading firmly towards the political center of Athens. Alcibiades pretends to ask the citizens to leave the government to him. Socrates is surprised. Indeed, they both agree that for a large number of activities, even the most harmless, we will ask for skills and even proof of them. But Alcibiades fails to demonstrate any for the governance of the city. Apart from the fact that the dialogue is tasty, it clearly shows the basis of Socratic reasoning, which we will see developing and renewing itself throughout Plato's texts. But also the basics of scientific reasoning.

II)基于这些基础,但这有点模糊,如何进行?在这里,让我们仍然坚持基本原则,苏格拉底(Socrates),通过柏拉图(Plato)。我要谈的是苏格拉底,更准确地说,是阿尔西比亚德大帝的苏格拉底。苏格拉底与正朝着雅典政治中心进发的阿尔西比亚德相遇。阿尔西比亚德假装要求市民将政府交给他。苏格拉底感到惊讶。事实上,他们两人都同意,对于大量的活动,即使是最无害的活动,我们也会要求具备技能,甚至是技能的证明。但是阿尔西比亚德未能证明自己具备治理城市的技能。除了这个对话很有趣之外,它清楚地展示了苏格拉底推理的基础,我们将在柏拉图的文本中看到它不断发展和更新。但也是科学推理的基础。

1) On the one hand, the "interlocutors" (these, in my opinion, are not defined by Socrates either but Plato thinks that they will be part of an elite) must agree on facts elementary. In science we will talk about observables and measurements. In science too, we have to agree: is what we are measuring relevant? Are the conditions satisfactory? Etc

1)一方面,"对话者"(在我看来,这些对话者也不是由苏格拉底定义的,但柏拉图认为他们将是精英的一部分)必须就事实达成基本共识。在科学中,我们将谈论可观察的事物和测量。在科学中,我们也必须同意:我们所测量的东西是否相关?条件是否令人满意?等等

2) Then begins the theoretical analysis. On the one hand, the facts will be categorized and a new debate will begin.

2)然后开始理论分析。一方面,将对事实进行分类,开始新的辩论。

3) Then the philosopher will endeavor to logically lix the categories together. This is where the interest of dealing with categories and not elementary facts appears!

3)然后,哲学家将努力在逻辑上把这些类别联系在一起。这就是处理范畴而非基本事实的兴趣所在

4) Inconsistencies must be eliminated. For example, Alcibiades would not allow any of his furniture to be touched except by a cabinetmaker, but wants the keys to the city to be left to him, even though he admits that he does not prove any particular skill on the subject.

4)矛盾必须被消除。例如,阿尔西比亚德斯不允许任何人触摸他的家具,除了木匠之外,但希望城市的钥匙留给他,尽管他承认他没有证明在这个问题上的任何特殊技能。
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


5) Obviously, I have broken down the process, but it is intricate. For example, the categorizations may be different depending on the theories, the sextion of facts, etc. The same goes for science. We are going to try to lix facts together through the intervention of theories which are sets of categories and relations between these categories.

5)显然,我已经分解了这个过程,但它是错综复杂的。例如,根据理论、事实的选择等,分类可能是不同的。科学也是如此。我们要试图通过理论的介入将事实联系在一起,而理论是类别和这些类别之间关系的集合。

6) Once everything has been "connected", everything is fine as long as there are no new facts (or new interpretations of the same facts), which challenge existing theories) that a new theory does not connect better (simpler, more precisely etc.) identical facts.

6)一旦一切都被 "连接 "起来,只要没有新的事实(或对相同事实的新解释),挑战现有的理论)新的理论没有连接更好(更简单、更精确等)的相同事实,一切都很好。

III) Even beyond these so to speak genetic considerations, philosophical sources are a bulwark against excesses.

III)即使在这些所谓的遗传学考虑之外,哲学来源也是防止过度的堡垒。

III.1) For example, I think that in political science it would be useful to consider democratic philosophies and elitist philosophies: There are two readings of Plato. Either we consider that we must take everything or nothing and we become adept at elitism. Either we "genericize" his point: the "leader" must be a philosopher. If he does not think properly, he loses power. This is how we can also say that the Socratic affirmation is rather: "The leaders must be wise and philosophical. Whoever they are: king, group or people".

III.1) 例如,我认为在政治学中,考虑民主哲学和精英主义哲学是有益的: 对柏拉图有两种解读。要么我们认为,我们必须接受一切,否则就什么都没有,我们就成为精英主义的高手。要么我们把他的观点 "泛化":"领袖 "必须是一个哲学家。如果他不好好思考,他就会失去权力。这样,我们也可以说,苏格拉底的肯定是相当的: "领导者必须是明智的和有哲理的。无论他们是谁:国王、团体或人民"。

III.2) In my profession, philosophy is my daily guide. My work involves many models. And the subjects of partiality (what is the relationship between my model and the World: the "real" the "true") and of "partiality" (what does my model say about the World? because, even ultra precise and exact, my model does not will give only one element and only one or 2 or 3... but only part of the essence of the world) are essential.

三.2)在我的职业中,哲学是我的日常指南。我的工作涉及许多模型。而局限性的主题(我的模型与世界之间的关系:“真实的”“真理”),以及“局限性”(我的模型对世界说了什么?因为,即使是超精确和准确的,我的模型也只会给出一部分世界本质的元素,而不是全部)是至关重要的。

My model is biased and partial!
If my fellow modellers practiced these questions, imbibed the cave metaphor (see Plato!), I think they would be more modest in their assertions! To give a scientific example, the measured value is important, but so is the estimated margin of error!

我的模型是有偏见和局限性的! 如果我的同行们能够实践这些问题,吸收洞穴的隐喻(见柏拉图!),我认为他们在陈述观点时会更加谨慎!举一个科学的例子,测量值很重要,但估计的误差范围也很重要!

III.3) Philosophy and science against ... common sense
Many people welcome the return of "common sense" in the management of public affairs. Apart from philosophy (and therefore science) do not appeal directly to common sense. Each fact is inscribed in a frx. Man cannot access reality by applying his simple common sense to the facts.
Without these principles, we would never have had relativity, quantum mechanics, the theory of evolution. I would even add that, in the 18th century, the theory of gravitation did not seem intuitive and seemed to oppose … common sense, of course!

III.3) 哲学和科学反对......常识许多人欢迎 "常识 "在公共事务管理中的回归。除了哲学(也就是科学)不直接诉诸于常识。每个事实都被刻在一个框架里。人类无法通过将其简单的常识应用于事实来获取现实。没有这些原则,我们就不会有相对论、量子力学、进化论。我甚至还想说,在18世纪,万有引力理论似乎并不直观,似乎反对......当然,是反对常识!

IV) "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"
I do not think that this sentence reveals above all a false modesty.
I don't even think it's a figure of speech, an image, a metaphor that means anything else. Even if it can ALSO be a metaphor that opens up new horizons for us.
I think this sentence is to be taken literally!

IV)"我唯一知道的是,我什么都不知道"
我不认为这句话首先揭示了一种虚假的谦虚。
我甚至不认为它是一个比喻,一个形象,一个隐喻,意味着什么。即使它也可以是一个为我们开辟新视野的隐喻。
我认为这句话应该按字面意思来理解!
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Indeed, what I said about models applies to scientific models, to theories and even to our...ideas.As the metaphor of the cave reveals, we can only guess the springs of the World to understand it.

的确,我所说的关于模型的内容适用于科学模型、理论,甚至是我们的......想法。
正如洞穴的比喻所揭示的那样,我们只能猜测世界的泉源来理解它。

Our "ideas of the world" and the World itself are two COMPLETELY different things. We have the illusion that they are the same things because, by definition, we works every day to make "ideas of the world" the better possible to describe the World and they are therefore as "close as possible". In fact, by definition, our ideas is totally close to the World… they are, by definition, as closed as the image of the World we have in our mind, because its that it is!

我们的 "世界观念 "和世界本身是两件完全不同的事情。我们有一种错觉,认为它们是同样的东西,因为根据定义,我们每天都在努力使 "世界的想法 "更好地描述世界,因此它们是 "尽可能地接近"。事实上,根据定义,我们的想法完全接近世界......根据定义,它们与我们脑海中的世界形象一样封闭,因为它是这样的

But, the only thing we can do is try to "bring" our ideas closer to the World. Or rather, because we can't even bring ideas closer to the World, make those ideas better describe the world. Indeed, as was the case from the 15th century, everything can be called into question.

但是,我们唯一能做的就是努力把我们的想法 "带 "近世界。或者说,因为我们甚至不能让思想接近世界,让这些思想更好地描述世界。事实上,正如15世纪以来的情况一样,一切都可以被质疑。

I make a small aside to say that the philosophy of Aristotle is one of the intellectual works that satisfied me the most. She has the good taste to start from a unique, unknown and inaccessible first cause at the origin of everything. In this cause the religious can easily slip their god into it. Then we talk about the Stars, then the elementary constituents, physics, biology etc. Even psychology is part of it, our state of mind resulting from the movements of our inner fluids, the humors. A theory that integrates so many areas into a coherent WHOLE is quite remarkable.

我想插入一句话,说亚里士多德的哲学是我最为满意的智力作品之一。他很有眼光,从一个唯一的、未知和无法触及的第一原因开始探讨万物的起源。在这个原因中,信仰者可以轻易地把他们的神插入其中。接着我们讨论星星,然后是基本成分、物理学、生物学等等。甚至心理学也是其中的一部分,我们的心理状态是由我们内部液体、体液的运动所导致的。这样一个将这么多领域整合成一个连贯的整体的理论是相当了不起的。
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


This is the main reason for the rejection of the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, more than religion, I think. Indeed, the theory was so integrated that the slightest questioning of an element, even seemingly minor, made it collapse completely, like a house of cards.

我认为,这是拒绝哥白尼和伽利略思想的主要原因,而不是宗教。事实上,这个理论是如此的综合,以至于对一个元素的最轻微的质疑,即使是看似微小的质疑,都会让它彻底崩溃,就像一座纸牌屋。

Note that between Galileo and Newton science no longer exists. We can hardly find a "World System". And yet, it is far from being as integrated as Aristotle's philosophy.

请注意,在伽利略和牛顿之间,科学不再存在。我们几乎找不到一个 "世界体系"。而且,它还远远没有像亚里士多德的哲学那样完整。

ANY MENTAL BUILDING, NOW BEAUTIFUL AND PERFECT AS IT MAY SEEM, CAN COLLAPSE SUDDENLY.

任何精神上的建筑,现在看起来很美很完美,都可能突然倒塌。

So:
There is the World on one side... and our ideas on the other, or "on another"!
In fact, we only know our own ideas. And again, not sure, given the theories of psychology!

所以:一边是世界......另一边是我们的想法,或者说 "另一个"!
事实上,我们只知道我们自己的想法。再说一遍,鉴于心理学的理论,不确定!

Quinn Rusnell
Science is one branch of philosophy with a very specific and effective epistemology in its relatively brief period of time. Other branches include mathematics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, and some theology, each with their own epistemologies. Philosophers can study the specific practices, ontological structures, and epistemologies of theories in different branches, and they can also study broader questions relevant to all branches. In practice, constructive philosophers tend to work within their primary fields to "harden" the field, either as a science by proposing new methods for experimentation, or a set of analytic definitions as a frxwork for formulating questions in the field, or as a field independent from science with its own methods appropriate for its obxts (or subjects) of study.

科学是哲学的一个分支,在其相对短暂的时期内具有非常具体和有效的认识论。其他分支包括数学、逻辑学、伦理学、美学和一些神学,每个分支都有自己的认识论。哲学家们可以研究不同分支理论的具体实践、本体论结构和认识论,他们也可以研究与所有分支相关的更广泛的问题。在实践中,建设性的哲学家倾向于在他们的主要领域内工作,以 "硬化 "该领域,或者通过提出新的实验方法作为一门科学,或者提出一套分析性的定义作为制定该领域问题的框架,或者作为一个独立于科学的领域,拥有适合于其研究对象(或主题)的自己的方法。

Scientists attempt to contribute to the body of knowledge within their specific fields and constrained by conventional methods of their fields and science in general. Sometimes scientists need to be philosophical in their fields, especially if the nature of their study does not lend itself particularly well to the way it has been previously studied. The challenge then is how to apply general scientific methods to testing the particular hypothesis. Many scientists become philosophical as well when they start interpreting the results of their experiments, or generalizing them to other questions. When the scientist starts asking fundamental questions about the nature of science itself, there really is no more distinction between the scientist and the philosopher, except maybe, because they have different backgrounds, how they got to those questions.

科学家试图在其特定领域内为知识体系做出贡献,并受到其领域和科学一般惯例的限制。有时候,科学家需要在他们的领域中进行哲学思考,特别是当他们研究的性质并不适合以前的研究方法时。挑战在于如何将一般科学方法应用于测试特定的假设。当科学家开始解释实验结果或将其概括到其他问题时,他们也可能变得具有哲学性。当科学家开始探讨关于科学本身性质的基本问题时,科学家和哲学家之间真的没有更多的区别,除了可能因为他们有不同的背景而到达这些问题的方式不同。
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Joshua Engel
Ideally, science is one sub-field of philosophy, where "philosophy" covers all human knowledge. The boundaries aren't exactly defined (see Demarcation problem) but roughly speaking science is the study of the consistent, observable features of the world. That is, it's about observing that the world appears to follow certain patterns, trying to induce what those patterns are, and continually improving our understanding of those patterns to make them more and more reliable.

理想情况下,科学是哲学的一个子领域,其中 "哲学 "涵盖所有人类知识。边界并没有完全界定(见分界问题),但大致上说,科学是对世界上一致的、可观察到的特征的研究。也就是说,它是关于观察世界似乎遵循某些模式,试图诱导这些模式是什么,并不断提高我们对这些模式的理解,使其越来越可靠。

Historically, "science" was "natural philosophy", with "nature" being another word for "the world" as I just used it. Today, "philosophy" is often treated as the remnants of philosophy once other aspects have been removed: music, mathematics, law, and language were all originally part of philosophy. What remains is a mishmash of ill-defined fields: metaphysics (the study of how people think about the world, though since that statement is itself a matter of metaphysics many would dispute it), ethics and morality, and similar hard-to-quantify domains. Once a domain becomes relatively easy to quantify, it stops being treated as philosophy and starts being treated as something else.

在历史上,"科学 "是 "自然哲学","自然 "是我刚才所用的 "世界 "的另一个词。今天,"哲学 "常常被当作是其他方面被剔除后的哲学残余:音乐、数学、法律和语言最初都是哲学的一部分。剩下的是一些定义不明确的领域的混杂物:形而上学(研究人们如何思考世界,尽管由于这种说法本身就是形而上学的问题,许多人会对此提出异议)、伦理和道德,以及类似的难以量化的领域。一旦一个领域变得相对容易量化,它就不再被当作哲学,而开始被当作其他东西。

Timothy Patric Fisette
The biggest difference between the two disciplines is that science relies upon the Empirical Method. While philosophy does not.Thus, unproven and even invalidated opinions built upon personal, subjective perception are not only welcome in philosophy--they comprise the majority of the field's collective opus of works.

这两个学科之间最大的区别是,科学依靠的是实证方法。而哲学则不然。
因此,建立在个人主观感受基础上的未经证实甚至无效的观点在哲学中不仅受到欢迎--它们构成了该领域的大部分集体作品。

In science opinion is all but worthless. Any perceived idea or observation must be tested and documented. Do this and if those tests or experiments validate your original idea, then you might have a hypothesis. Further testing and peer review can then either refute your work or validate it. Congrats! You now have a “theory.”
Speaking of peer review: that's another stronghold of science. Every single theory you've ever heard of has successfully passed many peer reviews.
Philosophy has nothing like that. Rebuttals and debates? Sure. But even those are built on mere opinions.

在科学中,观点几乎毫无价值。任何看法或观察结果都必须经过测试和记录。如果这些测试或实验验证了您最初的想法,那么您可能有一个假设。进一步的测试和同行评审可以驳斥您的工作或验证它。恭喜!您现在有一个“理论”。
说到同行评审:这是科学的另一个支柱。您听说过的每个理论都成功地经过了许多同行评审。
哲学没有这样的机制。有反驳和辩论吗?当然有。但即使是那些也只是基于简单的观点。
原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处


Caroline Araujo
Both have their discussions based on rational arguments, therefore, you need reason and logic to deal with philosophical and scientific topics. The main difference is that science is empirically testable, while philosophy is not. The only possible instance of criticism in philosophy is the deductive valid arguments, whereas in science you have experiments and empirical data to corroborate or to falsify a theory. In this sense, philosophy is very similar to mathematics, since both can’t empirically test their theories. In mathematics, you develop proofs for theorems based solely on logic.

两者的讨论都基于理性的论据,因此处理哲学和科学的话题需要理性和逻辑。主要区别在于科学是经过实证测试的,而哲学则不是。在哲学中唯一可能的批评形式是演绎有效的论证,而在科学中则有实验和经验数据来证实或推翻一个理论。在这个意义上,哲学非常类似于数学,因为两者都不能经验地测试他们的理论。在数学中,你通过逻辑推理来发展定理的证明。

很赞 2
收藏