How to understand the phrase both scientists and philosophers ?

In my opinion, this sentence means that there must be both a mind that dares to think and a brave person who has the courage to practice. Scientists are good at applying theory to practice and have the courage to explore, while philosophers are good at thinking and thinking.

I think if you compare a country to a train, then scientists must be the locomotive of this train, and they are very important to the country. But philosophers are the drivers of this train, they are at the helm of a country. Therefore, it is not enough for a country to have scientists, but also to have philosophers to grasp the development of ideas.

Science is to judge whether cognition is true through experiments or practice, and the scientific spirit is the spirit of seeking truth and seeking truth that is proved by practice or experiments. Philosophy, on the other hand, is the study of the direction and mode of cognition with the help of logic and speculation. There are two types of work in philosophy, one is to judge and analyze whether the recognized causal relationship is unified and self-consistent, and the other is to trace the causal relationship back to generate new cognition.

Both philosophy and science are faced with the problem of proof and falsification, and the reason why there is a distinction between philosophy and science is that the former is only logical, while the latter is experimental or practical.

At the heart of the conceptual category of "science" is whether or not experimentation or practice can be carried out. "Scientific" is what has been proven by practice or experiment, otherwise it is just a conjecture. Without the means of experimentation and practice, those who only make judgments and analyses logically can only be classified as philosophical concepts, not as scientific.

The prevalence of pseudoscience is precisely because the modern scientific community blurs the distinction between philosophy and science, and labels philosophical concepts as scientific theories, resulting in everything being science.

Philosophy is systematic cognition. Systematization means that all cognitions are related and logically correct, rather than isolated perspectives. So, not just any point of view can be called philosophy.

So, does one logic need to depend on another logic to form? If so, how did the first logical rationality come about? If not, how can logical rationality be formed in non-logical and irrational things?

Therefore, reason always assumes a priori that its cognition is correct, and it is not until there is a contradiction or paradox that it determines that the logic it originally identified is wrong, which is dialectical thought.

This is why, logically, you can only determine what is wrong, but you cannot conclude that what is not wrong is right. Whether it is correct or not can only be proven by practice. The philosophical role is to:

The first is to eliminate errors that can be found to determine what to practice, and the second is to analyze the causes of errors when the practice is wrong. That's why philosophy is the mother of science.

Scientists support the country's scientific and technological innovation, while philosophers are responsible for reflecting on human thought and correcting ideological errors in a timely manner.

Scientists are mainly focused on the material side and quite a lot on the spiritual side, and we still need to have both, and only when the two of them develop together can we become a perfect person.

This is like the combination of civil and military in ancient times, scientists specialize in research and are very rational, while philosophers belong to experts in the realm of thought, and belong to the kind that can cultivate sentiments, which can make people rational and romantic at the same time.

Philosophers belong to scientists, and philosophy belongs to the category of science, and science encompasses fields such as nature, society, and thinking, such as physics, biology, and sociology.

According to Aristotle's theory, philosophy originates from the awe of man. Aristotle was based on the pre-Socratic philosophers' exploration of the stars and the earth. He believes that these people were motivated by their amazement and awe of the universe to devote themselves to philosophical research.

Today, philosophers are still amazed, but this amazement is not caused by the universe, but by human beings.

Scientists have changed our lives, philosophers have changed our minds, and both are great people.

During the Renaissance, philosophy freed itself from the shackles of religion and assumed the role it assumed in antiquity. The Renaissance philosopher Montaigne revived the tradition of ancient philosophy, and he tried to understand life, ** topics related to life. Bacon (another philosopher of the Renaissance), in addition to his great interest in science, also gave constructive advice to people on how to live a good life.

By the Middle Ages, philosophy no longer taught people how to live, and religion began to play the role that philosophy once played. Philosophy has become the "handmaiden of theology." Philosophy at this time has nothing to do with life; Philosophy at this time is mixed with logic, word meanings, and thought processes, much like how it behaved in the 20th century. ‍‍

Philosophers mainly write for only one reader or one believer. This reader is very much like the philosopher himself, his experiences in his youth are similar to those of this philosopher, and he represents the future of this philosopher.

Ancient philosophers sometimes had abstract, metaphysical questions, but they were generally not detached from life, they tried to understand the world and teach people how to live. The philosophers of that time taught people to face up to poverty, sickness, and death, and philosophers of that time always tried to live their own philosophy of life. Their philosophy is closely related to life, even if it is a pessimistic philosophy.

There was a philosopher named Hegesias who advised people to give up their lives, and as a result, many of his disciples committed suicide. King Ptolemy thus forbade Hokisias to lecture in order to avoid his philosophy from depopulating the population of the country.

The work of philosophers touches on various branches of the humanities: psychology, political science, literature, etc. Similarly, the work of scientists often involves various branches of science:

Mechanics, optics, astronomy, etc. Philosophers and scientists generally germinate their main ideas in their youth (around 20 years old). ‍‍

Philosophers were motivated not only by awe but also by interest in the questions posed by earlier philosophers. Every philosopher begins where the previous one left off.

There were no scientists in Europe before, they were all philosophers. You read Newton's book "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", and they think that the study of natural philosophy. And you find that the previous scientists were all philosophers, they were all a complete person, on the one hand, they pursued the truth, the laws of nature, but they also longed for freedom, the pursuit of a more inclusive and open social environment.

Scientists change technology, philosophers change ideas, politicians change behavior.

Scientific knowledge refers to knowledge or body of knowledge that covers the operation of general truths or universal laws, especially those that have been obtained or verified through the scientific method. Scientific knowledge relies heavily on logical reasoning.

Why is it that no matter how hard human beings try, no one can escape the system of the I Ching?

Whether it is philosophy, religion, natural science, astrophysics, or life science, there is indeed no master, no saint, and no scientific elite who can understand the Book of Changes.

For many years, it has been impossible to promote the I Ching with materialism and teachings.

Science can't answer the question of why we live.

Not a philosopher-scientist, just a humanoid calculator.

Science has the courage to look down on philosophy, and philosophy may sometimes look up to science.

The yin and the yang must be balanced.

A philosopher, the mother of a scientist!

Philosophical discouragement keeps science on the right track.

Probably condensed can be said to be "knowing" and "doing".

Descartes: a modern philosopher, who also founded analytic geometry, and contributed to optics and astronomy;

Leibniz: A modern philosopher who also founded calculus.

Kant: Classical philosopher, put forward the Kant-Laplace nebula hypothesisBruno: Italian philosopher, although his philosophical contribution is not outstanding, but he has made a great contribution to astronomy.

Mach: Modern philosopher and physicist. There is also a unit in gas dynamics named in his honor.

Pascal: Author of the philosophical masterpiece "Thoughts", he also made great contributions to physics and analytic geometry, and the unit of pressure in physics was named in his honor.

No. Philosophy is the science of science, and this sentence is only describing the relationship between philosophy and concrete science. Namely:

Philosophy is a science based on concrete sciences and abstract generalizations of concrete sciences. Here, science is only a kind of knowledge, a research system, and does not judge the correctness of its system.

No. 1. "The science of science" is a mistaken assumption of philosophy that ancient philosophy was "knowledge."

Later, a lot of knowledge was gradually independent into specific sciences.

Some modern philosophers believe that philosophy is "the science of science", but this assumption is wrong.

Philosophy is a theorized and systematic worldview and method. Philosophy cannot include concrete sciences, and concrete sciences cannot abandon philosophy.

2. Marxism is scientific (truth), but it is not "the science of science".

Marxist philosophy can guide concrete science, but it cannot override concrete science;

Marxist philosophy should be based on concrete science, but it should not be trapped in concrete science.

True philosophy" is not necessarily entirely true.

To understand what true philosophy is, the following points should be noted.

First, the criterion for judging true philosophy is to see whether it correctly reflects the tasks and requirements of the times, whether it firmly grasps the pulse of the times, and whether it correctly sums up and summarizes the practical experience and cognitive achievements of the times. In other words, to see if it represents the mainstream of the times and the direction of history.

Second, it cannot be said that any philosophy that contains individual erroneous conclusions is not true philosophy, and that philosophers cannot transcend their own time in their understanding of problems, so that the philosophical forms of a certain period have their own limitations in the eyes of later generations. This requires us to observe the problem from a historical perspective. As long as a philosophy represents the mainstream of its own time and the direction of history, we must recognize it as a true philosophy.

Third, we should not think that any philosophy that is inconsistent with Marxist philosophy, or that has been criticized by Marxism, is not true philosophy. We should persist in using the Marxist method of historical analysis to observe problems, rather than using the concrete conclusions of Marxist philosophy to measure them.

True philosophy is the sublimation of the spirit of one's own time, but it is not necessarily correct.

1.A philosopher is a person who engages in philosophical reflections. In the sense of science and history of science, a philosopher refers to a philosopher who has his own philosophical paradigm and an original philosophical basic theory and philosophical system.

Whether or not there is one's own philosophical paradigm and original philosophical basic theories is the fundamental difference between philosophers and ordinary philosophical scholars. The earliest philosophers all started from finding and solving the problem of "primordialness", and studied the problem of world view.

2.Scientist is a general term that broadly refers to a professional category contributor to the digital reproduction and understanding, exploration, practice, and definition of the unity of real and unknown life, environment, phenomena and related phenomena. The narrow definition refers to people who specialize in scientific research, including natural scientists and social scientists.

All researchers in the natural sciences and social sciences who have attained a certain level of attainment and have been recognized by relevant departments and industries can be called scientists.

Many scientists are philosophers, and it should be said that anyone who can be called a scientist is a philosopher, even though he or she may not have studied philosophy.

I know DeCarr is, and his achievements in mathematics go without saying. At the same time he was a proponent of dualism. He has a famous Dikar heart-shaped ray, which is said to be a confession to a certain princess, and there is a tragic story behind it.

I suggest you check it out on Wikipedia. There may be something you want.

I. There are so many stories.

Do you want to know about philosophy or science?