Reply to Thread

I think you are contradicting yourself. Science can't answer your question, only eloquent words can. It is only human nature to see a problem from more than just a scientific view, because sometimes science doesn't have the answer...oh by the way, did you realize you were philosophizing during your question?

Scientists are just as diversified in their opinions about things as theologians or philosophers are.
Beyond the functional sciences, such as mechanics, and IT, science is far from exact.
When it comes to the unseen or long ago, science rarely has any more to offer than philosophy. It is no more provable, and no more unanimous, especially lately.

Science can explain the theory in why such things are and how they work in life as part of your human fuctions/ behaviour, philosophy explains the possibilities, how different people interpret different things, how people relate to events of the past and present.

What you're asking is like..abolishing religion and replacing it with Darwin's theory of evolution. The thing is...philosophy is used in place because nothing has no defined answer.

You seem to have missed the whole point of emotions

edit: cause everyone is not born with supreme knowledge of science, and wants answers, so they have emotional appeals to the supernatural

thats why religion and philosophy is so illogical and based on primal feelings like love, jealousy and hate

Here's a hint: To a theist, "God" is the answer to every question.

To a thinker, science answers some questions while philosophy answers others. There is not a scientific answer to everything. Philosophy deals with questions that science was never meant to answer.

You seem to think we worship science as a god. False.

I am sure there is not a scientific reason for the origin of emotions, or even for the origin of a brain. Some things definitely are beyond the realm of science.

Philosophy was 'invented' before modern science. In fact, originally philosophy and natural science were one and the same. The word 'philosophy' simply means "love of wisdom."

Now that science has answered a lot (but not all; there's still a lot to discover) of our questions about life and the universe, philosophy is still useful as a way of describing how people should live, what are the implications of the scientific discoveries, and how we should move into the future.

What was that, oh fallacious question asker?

Why are the two incompatible?

A chef may well know the ingredients used in baking a cake, but he isn't going to refer to the cake by its ingredients and it isn't going to stop him from enjoying the experience of eating the cake just because he knows what goes in it?

Anyway nobody not even scientists claim to have all the answers. Science only deals in what is rational and what can be measured or tested, science doesn't say there is no God or there is no such thing as love or beauty etc, science doesn't care whether they exist or not, they just aren't factors that are considered in the scientific disciplines. Anyone who tries to claim that there is or is not a God is not being scientific.

Now just because science doesn't care whether these things exist or not doesn't mean the scientist can't care, they are after all complete and whole human beings. It's an impoverished life indeed that only deals with one subject to the exclusion of all others.

If everything that a human does, feels, thinks, can be explained with biology

and evolution why do people use? philosophy to answer life's questions? What does philosophy have to do with biology and evolution? Why use eloquent words to describe or surmise something when the answers is in science?

I just don't get why people say that one should embrace science, but at the same time they avoid it. Why can't people give or taught to give a scientific answer to everything and for everything?
I am sure there is a scientific reason for emotions, why dumb it down.
I know that is science, but why is phiolosophy such consider obsolete now, when there is science.
I made some spelling errors. Anyway, philosophy leaves an open. With science that cannot be,
Asking "why?" in science is way different from asking "why?" in philosophy
Hit mumbol;

I know. Yet what do you mean by interpretation? A scientific answer doesn't need an interpretation. That is like saying that there can be several ways to describe an event, when in truth it only happened one way. Someones philosophical interpretation to an event that happen while he was a block away is going to be different from that person who was 2 blocks away
Roadtrip:
that is what I mean, why :"think over" something when there is no need to.

Why can't you answer everything with a scientific answer
"cause everyone is not born with supreme knowledge of science"

Okay so the people who are do they have answer everything with science? Instead of them saying "I love you" do they say "my endorphins are increasing at this moment so much that I feel that I must have intercourse with you"
"science answers some questions while philosophy answers others"

Some answers? I thought science will answer or will one day answer all questions. If there is a question that science cannot answer, then that question is beyond the realm of science.
Science does say that there is no God, or maybe it is scientist who say that. Is that the same?
Need more than science; i thought ALL you need was science and that science can or will soon answer everything. So why not use science for the answer to everything all the time, why only some times.