Do We Need Philosophy, Or Can Science Replace It?

Do We Need Philosophy, Or Can Science Replace It?

You see the news? Woman pretending to be a man walked into a school and murdered a bunch of kids.

“I know what you’re going to say. You’re going to say that that’s bad.”

You’re a genius. I do say so. It’s about as bad as you can get.

“Well, like, that’s just your opinion, man.”

Oh, funny, funny.

“You can’t say what is bad or what is good. I mean, you can, but it doesn’t mean anything. Evolution made you say it. It made your genes want to not have kids shot by trannies. Something about inclusive fitness. I don’t know. It’s math, and therefore science, which is superior to all other forms of thinking.”

Evolution gave me my opinions?

“Had to. That’s what the science says.”

That must mean evolution gave everybody their opinions.

“It does mean that, yes. Can’t be escaped. We are prisoners of our genes, and our genes were formed over millions of years of evolution.”

That so? How do you know that’s true?

“It is so, yes. And we can’t know anything is true. Evolution made us believe comforting thoughts that have nothing to do with the truth, but which enhance our survival.”

And you think it’s true that you can’t know truth? Truly, science is amazing. Anyway, if what you say is right, it means evolution told that tranny to kill those kids, since genes make us do everything.

“Nah. She was just defective.”

I’d say she was rather effective. Got away with killing the kids. And would have got away with her life, too, had she surrendered.


Since genes make everybody do everything, genes made Stalin slaughter all those millions. Right? And they made Mao jealous, so he upped the score. And my revulsion was made by my genes, even though I’m in no way related to all those Chinese corpses?

“That’s the way it works. He who has power rules. There is no right and wrong. There is only survival.”

If survival is that only thing that matters, then even survival doesn’t matter. Because nothing can matter. There has to be objective morality for anything to truly matter. Anyway, the people that kill themselves, or their children, which is a growing number of people, their genes made them do that, too?

“No, they were, and are, defective too. They aren’t surviving.”

What about people who eat crap, sit around and grow fat and indulge in masturbation. Or I should say, take Pride in masturbation. They broken, too?

“Yes. All that matters is survival.”

We’ll skip how all these broken genes got created so fast, and are now so widespread. I’m more interested in the idea that nothing matters, everything is opinion, just feelings caused by genes to maximize survival. But only sometimes. Sometimes the genes maximize death.

“It’s just like free will. Which is an illusion.”

A what now?

“An illusion. We just think we can make choices.”

Who—who exactly—is this “we”? Who—who exactly—is having the illusion? What are the measurable characteristics of this illusion? How can an illusion think, or how can it think it can think, or have what it thinks is free will? How do you know the illusion isn’t the (let us call it) entity directing things, the entity really making choices? The whole idea is incoherent.

“Science says so.”

It does? How?

“Science says that feelings are located in the brain. It’s those feelings that are the illusions. It’s that—.”

Hold up. How does the brain make an illusion of a being or entity that believes it is alive, can form ideas, posit universals, have opinions, and have feelings?

“All that stuff is just the brain working.”

Is it? Prove it.

“It’s obvious. We are nothing more than material beings. Therefore, we have to be illusions on top of meat bags driven by genes to maximize survival.”

Except often we don’t maximize survival. And anyway, it’s your idea that we are only material beings. That sounds like an odd philosophy.

“It isn’t philosophy. It’s science.”

So you’re going to call your belief in materialism, which you cannot prove but merely assert, not a philosophy, but “just science.”

“I am. And I can prove it. Or science can.”

Well, have it your way. Use whichever word you like. It’s still an idle boast. Nor you, nor science, has no proof of materialism. You’re just bluffing. If you had such proof, you’d give it.

“They’ll get it some day.”

I won’t wait up. You are using the Future Promise Fallacy which says something is true now because someday, not today, it will be proved true. Which is another strange philosophy.

“It’s not philosophy. We don’t need philosophy. We outgrew that as a species once we got science.”

And we got trannies, created by science. If we don’t need philosophy, and given science can’t get along without math, what is—what exactly is—math?

“I’m not a mathematician.”

Do we invent math? Or does math describe Reality? And what kind of Reality? Nominalistic? Platonic? Realistic? Do infinities exist, or are they only potential? How can we know mathematical truths? What about axioms? How can logic be true if evolution might be lying to us?

“Like I said, I’m not a mathematician. I don’t know.”

Every question requires a philosophy of mathematics. How about this one: what is life? What differentiates it from non-life?

“I’m not a biologist. But they must know.”

Some might. But you can’t escape having a philosophy of life versus non-life. Just like physicists can’t escape a philosophy of matter. Some, for instance, still cling to the ancient Democritian idea that everything is just small particles (or whatever) bumping into each other (as you’ve heard me say). Even though quantum mechanics kicked the air out of that one long ago.

You have a have a philosophy of what a model is, what a theory is, what is a measurement, what is cause (not so easy!), what is explanation, what is prediction, and on and on. Are there “laws” of nature? If so, why? Why these “laws” and not others? Or are there instead laws of natures? Why these natures and not others?

Then there is the grandest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? That’s not science. What about Aristotle’s argument about the Prime Mover? That’s not science. What’s the difference between primary and secondary causation? That’s not science.

And what about your mysterious illusions. What causal processes bring them about? More importantly, how do they differ in essence from the idea we are rational animals? You simply can’t escape philosophy.

“You’ll want to if you read what is coming out universities. Feminist ‘philosophy’? Fa—I mean LGBT ‘philosophy’? Endless squabbling about words. They never produce anything of use.”

You may be on to something there.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email:, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. Hagfish Bagpipe

    Do We Need Philosophy?

    Who needs Philosophy when you have Philosophistry?

  2. Vermont Crank

    Does Aquinas teach that Darwin is a Dog Faced Pony Soldier whose science is corrupt and should be condemned?


    Article 6: Whether this doctrine is the same as wisdom?

    Objection 1: It seems that this doctrine is not the same as wisdom. For no doctrine which borrows its principles is worthy of the name of wisdom; seeing that the wise man directs, and is not directed (Metaph. i). But this doctrine borrows its principles. Therefore this science is not wisdom.

    Objection 2: Further, it is a part of wisdom to prove the principles of other sciences. Hence it is called the chief of sciences, as is clear in Ethic. vi. But this doctrine does not prove the principles of other sciences. Therefore it is not the same as wisdom.

    Objection 3: Further, this doctrine is acquired by study, whereas wisdom is acquired by God’s inspiration; so that it is numbered among the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Is. 11:2). Therefore this doctrine is not the same as wisdom.

    On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 4:6): “This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations.”

    I answer that, This doctrine is wisdom above all human wisdom; not merely in any one order, but absolutely. For since it is the part of a wise man to arrange and to judge, and since lesser matters should be judged in the light of some higher principle, he is said to be wise in any one order who considers the highest principle in that order: thus in the order of building, he who plans the form of the house is called wise and architect, in opposition to the inferior laborers who trim the wood and make ready the stones: “As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation” (1 Cor. 3:10). Again, in the order of all human life, the prudent man is called wise, inasmuch as he directs his acts to a fitting end: “Wisdom is prudence to a man” (Prov. 10: 23). Therefore he who considers absolutely the highest cause of the whole universe, namely God, is most of all called wise. Hence wisdom is said to be the knowledge of divine things, as Augustine says (De Trin. xii, 14). But sacred doctrine essentially treats of God viewed as the highest cause—not only so far as He can be known through creatures just as philosophers knew Him—“That which is known of God is manifest in them” (Rm. 1:19)—but also as far as He is known to Himself alone and revealed to others. Hence sacred doctrine is especially called wisdom.

    Reply to Objection 1: Sacred doctrine derives its principles not from any human knowledge, but from the divine knowledge, through which, as through the highest wisdom, all our knowledge is set in order.

    Reply to Objection 2: The principles of other sciences either are evident and cannot be proved, or are proved by natural reason through some other science. But the knowledge proper to this science comes through revelation and not through natural reason. Therefore it has no concern to prove the principles of other sciences, but only to judge of them. Whatsoever is found in other sciences contrary to any truth of this science must be condemned as false: “Destroying counsels and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4,5).

  3. Incitadus

    Humans are infinitely programable they can be made to believe any entropic absurdity
    or rise to the pinnacle of classic autonomy comprehending and controlling nature itself,
    even the weather. The masses yoked to perpetual entropy entertain every suspicion
    but never apprehend the latter.

  4. Shall each next generation again experience the paradoxes and mistakes known so far, or does it need blueprints as for building of houses.
    Humans naturally use playful learning in harmless simulations for dealing with dangerous and everyday situations and events, and they pass on to young generations what was learned.

  5. Brian

    I have always wondered if Hamlet was saying; “There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your PHILOSOPHY” or “…than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy.”

  6. Hey doc?

    Would you like a guest post? I started off to burb out a few words in response to the issues you’ve been raising over the last week (or decade) here and got a little carried away — so turned it into a 2300 word distroph – see .

    I almost never get replies to my comments here but some of your readers may think the extra miles worth thinking about – so if you want to try it, feel free to copy it over.

    P.s. I have enemies too – and have not run spell check on it.. 😉

  7. Johnno

    Who needs anything?

    Just make everything A.I.

    Even us.

    Then let it all just sit there idling on a computer.

    Paradise at last!

  8. El Mero

    Fascinating. Wish I could say more but going to Drag Queen Laplace and Fourier Transforms lecture in a few minutes

  9. The Lizard King finds you funny and will eat you last.

  10. Calvin

    @Vermont Crank:
    Does the modern RCC absolutely refute the claims of infallible divine guidance? Hell yes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *