Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[Brown Thrasher]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

As the cognitive, neurological, neurochemical, etc, sciences evolve and improve, the window of necessity that philosphy looks into will narrow, or maybe more accurately its focus will narrow.

I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Brown Thrasher

I disagree. I think there has been a great deal of progress made in the areas you describe already. However, philosophy will continue, just as religion and science will continue to argue until the end of time. In my opinion, philosophical thought will continue to be as important as religious dogma and scientific theories for there will always be debate over the most basic questions.

While I agree that there will always be a debate over the most basic questions, I don't think that philosophy will be able to "answer" those questions, due to it's basic nature, which is argumentative and subjective.


Science, on the other hand, is objective, and MAY be able to answer some of those basic questions, eventually, or at least put forth logical theories.

For instance, anthropology used to be an area of philosophy (Poor Jean-Jacques!); the philosophical arguments concerning anthropology (like Rousseau's "Noble Savage") turned out to be way off the mark.

Ideas of good and evil are subjective and change over time, so there will probably never be a consensus on it.

So I'd have to say that I'd tend to agree with TS in that I believe that philosophical questions will become more focused as science discovers more and more.