Welcome back to Carnegie zorg today we're going to be continuing with our series dumbfounding definitions dizzying distinctions and diabolical doctrines a series sorting through the jargon of philosophy today we're going to be doubling up for a three minute philosophy video in this video we're going to be looking at the difference .
Between philosophy and philosophy of science what's the difference between these two disciplines they're often confused people often think that they're the same thing when in fact they're very distinct so science is a methodology that performs experiments and attempts to explain phenomena it attempts to provide us with the theory that best .
Fits the evidence it then uses inductive methods to provide further justification or disproof for that theory through experiments that can control for certain variables that we predict are the causes of phenomena basically science uses something called the scientific method it takes that method and based on that gives us theories of best fit for the .
Evidence we have and it attempts to then disprove those theories so that we can provide more and more justification for them philosophy of science on the other hand is a discipline of philosophy that deals with the justification for the scientific method itself science assumes the scientific method and builds up from that philosophy of science tries to .
Build up to the scientific method it tries to give some reasons for us thinking that the scientific method works the last native science also deals with the demarcation between what is and what is not science so if you're asking the question is this science it's not up to science to decide that's a job for philosophy of science science works .
Within the bounds of science to do science philosophy of science works outside those bounds to determine what fits in those bounds and what does not an area of study that questions whether or not science is directed at truth is a way to describe philosophy of science it questions some of the assumptions of science so once again science assumes .
The scientific method is effective and bases its work on that assumption different fields of science rest on varying quantities of assumptions but they all rely on some generally that the scientific method is effective philosophy of science on the other hand in the business of questioning those basic assumptions which give rise to .
Problems like the problem of induction the problem of under determination and the problem of demarcation unless solutions to these problems are found even some of the best confirmed science is going to be invalid since it's very methods are in question even the best confirmed scientific discoveries all rely on the scientific .
Method being true and scientists never questioned whether or not the scientific method is effective at providing truth that's a job for philosophers of science so when you're asking whether or not a scientific claim is true it's not the scientist you should ask but the philosopher of science science takes the assumptions of the scientific method and .
Attempts to build up from them to new discoveries whereas philosophy of science takes the scientific method and attempts to build down to show that this method is in some way something that provides us with truth about the world or has justified discoveries if you are curious about philosophy of science check out the videos I have here with .
Kind of this green background where we cover different issues in philosophy of science watch this video more here at Carnegie stuff org and stay sceptical everybody