I tracked down Kuhn’s book because this is one of the points of origin for the semi-mythical “Revolution in Military Affairs” (usually written as RMA for obvious reasons). A very interesting point was that Kuhn rejected the possibility that his ideas had any relevance beyond hard science, but I have argued elsewhere that what Kuhn missed was that the process had more to do with how people think and process ideas than it did with the arcania of physics.
The Venn diagram of philosophy and science has a lot of overlap. The sharpest distinction is that scientific methods are (ideally) precise, replicable, and explicit. This makes them instrumental means towards chosen ends. Philosophy has looser constraints and is often vague, aphoristic, or implicit. This permits wider exploration of purposes and ends but at the risk of being both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Both can be esoteric or exoteric. Philosophy provides the "why" and science provides the "how".
Society becomes disconnected with claims to objective truth when theology is deemed irrelevant. C.S. Lewis wrote heavily on the subject. Purely scientific worlds have no basis for universal moral claims.
Well said. I appreciate the orderly way in which you analyzed your aversion to the science section. I have a similar aversion, for basically the same reasons, but I had never really thought about it. So, thank you for that.
I tracked down Kuhn’s book because this is one of the points of origin for the semi-mythical “Revolution in Military Affairs” (usually written as RMA for obvious reasons). A very interesting point was that Kuhn rejected the possibility that his ideas had any relevance beyond hard science, but I have argued elsewhere that what Kuhn missed was that the process had more to do with how people think and process ideas than it did with the arcania of physics.
The Venn diagram of philosophy and science has a lot of overlap. The sharpest distinction is that scientific methods are (ideally) precise, replicable, and explicit. This makes them instrumental means towards chosen ends. Philosophy has looser constraints and is often vague, aphoristic, or implicit. This permits wider exploration of purposes and ends but at the risk of being both unverifiable and unfalsifiable. Both can be esoteric or exoteric. Philosophy provides the "why" and science provides the "how".
Society becomes disconnected with claims to objective truth when theology is deemed irrelevant. C.S. Lewis wrote heavily on the subject. Purely scientific worlds have no basis for universal moral claims.
Well said. I appreciate the orderly way in which you analyzed your aversion to the science section. I have a similar aversion, for basically the same reasons, but I had never really thought about it. So, thank you for that.