What are Difference Between a SCIENTIST and a PHILOSOPHER?

Question

a scientist also search the truth

philosopher also search the truth

what is difference between them?

if we are studying philosophy of religion,than we are studying arguments for the existence of god,arguments for the non existence of god,so a philospher is searching the truth with logic ,scientist also do same thing

what is the difference?

give your answer in points like

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 so i can choose your answer as best answer

Answer 1

Well, ACTUALLY, I would say in both cases you're talking about essentially ongoing conversations when you use the terms "scientist" and "philosopher." It's not like saying "dogs" or "rocks" because with the latter groups an object either is or isn't in the categories in the former you have to fumble about with inconsistent opinions about what makes a person fall into either category. And, as an existentialist, I generally dislike grouping individual humans into categories ANYWAY, but for discussion:

1. Scientists should look for testable theories and use measurable data whereas philosophers ask about questions that cannot really be subjected to testing.

2. In theoretical science you may have more philosophy, such as string theory which has been going for many years but is still basically untested, thus, at the moment it is more philosophy. But then science has always operated this way. Consider Edison and Einstein. Edison invented the long-lasting light bulb by trial and error experiments in the physical world; what I would consider very pure science. Einstein "invented" theories almost entirely out of his own head  which were untestable and used only logic and imagination, I would consider that philosophy. Once it became testable, proofs were made and it became science ... as is becoming / has become the case with string theory.

3 As an on-going conversation differences between these groups in cultural terms are really determined by what current scientists and current philosophers say they are - - they define their own fields to some extent. Philosophy used to be the love of wisdom and attempted to keep a very practical footing, but now on the top of the mountain we have postmodern philosophers such as Derrida whose work may actually be anti-practical. Students tend to get rewarded for creating unusual and aggressive arguments to dismount the current king of the hill, not for their attempts to seek the truth. Further, scientists often use current observations and logically extrapolate previous or future states based on them and thus come up with global warming or evolution, which should more properly belong in the field of philosophy or meta-physics since they currently have no means of being tested and can only be observed. (Thus I said "meta-physics" for "beyond" physical testing.)

In Science the need for research grants may consciously or unconsciously motivate a person to exaggerate the likelihood of positive findings because he or she likes being employed ... not really a truth-generating situation either.

4. In the MOST useful sense I would say the main, non-academic, difference between the two are the personalities. They are very similar persons, one simply likes the world that can be touched and the other prefers the untouchable.

Answer 2

Scientist searches for truth of "nature", philosopher searches for truth of "nature of science". Philosopher searches evidence for general principles about the "nature of science", while Scientist searches evidence for general principles about the nature, and, they, prompted by the most recent discoveries in their respective fields, provide interpretations of science and the natural world and thereby contribute to our understanding.

Answer 3

science only sees what it 'is' , not what it 'should be'.

Answer 4

A scientist, one who is pure, is led only by the data and not by empirical reports, emotion, etc. Science is supposed to be pure (which is a shortcoming, IMHO).

Philosophy, while the study or "love" of knowledge, can glean some of its answers from empirical observation; much as how Plato contrived the Form's, Aquinas the Proof of God, or Descartes the proof of himself.

Science is the purity of knowledge, philosophy the art!

Answer 5

Scientists use the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, testing, etc.) to answer questions. Although nothing can be PROVED, they find ways to support it until it is disproved.

Philosophers interpret their surroundings and feelings in ways that makes sense to them. They use logic to decipher the thoughts in their mind until it runs wild and gets way to deep!

This is my opinion, and as you can tell it is not very educated. :)

Answer 6

not much - especially as you will find that many Science "Doctors" actually have a doctorate in Philosophy.

Answer 7

1)  Up to a point, a philosopher and a scientist sail together- up to the point of formulating a proposition.

2)   The Scientist tries to prove the proposition with concrete and verifiable facts and for this purpose he uses proven methods and employes scientific instruments.

3)   The philosopher as you said tries to prove his proposition with logic and mental faculties.

4)   The scientific investigation is more flexible in that it stands scrutiny and correction with more investigation either by the same scientist or by other scientists.

5)   The philosopher tends to become rigid and inflexible. More often, a philosophy always invites a theory quite opposite to his and therefore we have a plethora of view-points on the same subject, none agreeing on the same thing.

Answer 8

I would say that one uses equipment in order to perform experiments in order to arrive at conclusions. whereas the other performs observations of naturally occurring events or of experiments others conducted to arrive at conclusions.

so basically a scientist would be more a person following a methodology that will inevitably arrive at an answer. whereas a philosopher will use logic and thought expermients more in order to arrive at conclusions.

a philospher can be a scientist and vice versa but they must not necessarily be.

most responsible for furthering technology and knowledge of man are only scientists. Einstein was more of a philosopher. they didn't succeed at conducting the experiments needed to test his hypothesis until much after he had made his discoveries. strictly scientists can't do that.

Answer 9

Scientists search for the truth through observation, testing, and proof.  Philosophers search for the truth through perception.

Answer 10

when i think about a modern day philosopher, i picture of a fat lazy b*****d who smokes weed all day and thinks really deeply about life. he may or may not use logic/reasoning. but even if he did who'd care nowadays if he didn't have the science to back it up.

these days people care about what they can see/understand.

a scientist can SHOW proof of something.

a philosopher can talk about it.

im sorry im 2 lazy to do that 1. 2. 3. thing.

Answer 11

1. Science deals with a specific branch's of philosophy Namely primacy of existence in metaphysics and positivistic empiricism in epistemology.

2. There is no difference except that some philosophers study other branch's as well for example ethics as well as natrual philosophy aka science

Answer 12

The best is when both are together because Albert Einstein believed in God.  He said that science without religion is lame!