Is either one more important than the other? If so why? If not, why not?

Perhaps they are both equally important

Personally, I agree. But it seems there are very few others who have any opinion - or at least, any desire to discuss them.

Well value is the assessment of what a thing has done for you, or can do for you, or the ability of the thing to make you feel good, or happy.

So based on these criteria (feel free to add your own criteria)

Give me your answer, you already know my answer.

I would agree with your criteria. I think those are the only one's that should matter. That is, how does each contribute to or assist in attaining one's personal goals.

When I first thought about this question, I thought that they were equally important. Two different sides to the same coin really.

However, upon further reflection I realized that my viewpoint has gone through a change. In my early life, I looked at science as the most important. But I find that as I've gotten older, philosophy has had more meaning to me. Maybe that's a natural by-product of growing older ("approaching death", yada yada). But I really think it's more of a paradigm shift from a "true or false" orientation to a "good or bad" orientation.

Or maybe from "how" to "why".

Anyway, personally, I love science for it's wonder and excitement, but I enjoy philosophy for it's freedom and unlimited possibilities.

It's kinda like the difference between going on a roller coaster ride, and composing a piece of music.

Wow really good post Sky, well said!

Perhaps if you could define philosopy I could better awnser your question.

Well, here's a few definitions:

"Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods."

"The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."

"Philosophy is the study of general problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."

Any or all of these is workable as far as I'm concerned, since the question about it is fairly general anyway.

you have two different types of sciences, biology, chemistry, anatomy all of these sciences have reliable testings and studies, where that, everyone conducting the same study afterward will come up with the same results.

Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology are changeable sciences where that, the norms of society dictates the policies of the governments and people. A study can change over generational changes.

Well the distinguising feature would seem to be method and the limits placed on science with defintions that cant be measured(as of yet) like concepts of justice, fairness, these things being internalized and highly subjective and different for evryone. Science deals with truths ro laws that can be demonstarted and repeated until proven otherwise, by way of mathmatics or measurement, so the main difference is in what we can and can not quantify. Perhaps the awnser is philosophy deals with why we investigate and foir what ends and science is the how, yet still by defintion they would tend to overlap. Both rely on logic and reason and an assumption of a higher truth. I would like to see science remain a method as scietists have a poor grasp of ethics, yes im talking about you oppenhiemer.

Neither one is more important than the other. Philosophy applies logic in its search for “truth”. It seems to allow for infinite possibilities. Logic propels Science to seek and provide absolute physical proof ("truth"). Science seems to jump in its intention to prove itself “true”, allowing for fewer possible outcomes.

Perhaps Philosophy employs less agendum to be “right” than Science to prove theories as absolute truth.

I feel both are of the same nature in the sense that they involve seeking out absolute truth in the universe. What science can not physically prove philosophy can allow us to reason and deduece from the universe around us. What philosophy can't reason and deduece science can sometimes provide a way to test and eliminate possiblities in theories to clear up confusion.

Well stated!

No amount of beautiful theory trumps experiment.

As far as I know, "trumping experiment" has never been the purpose of any theory or philosophy, or the desire of any theoretician or philosopher.

Hes just repeating something he heard, dont worry he has no real ideas. SOme scientist so and so hwatever said that.

What you really should say is that Philosophy, Psychology and Sociology are NOT science.

Well said, the issue that seems to be effecting the philosophy community of the last hundred years is that reality is stranger then common sense and logic which are the two most powerful basis for the philosophical tool set.

Without experiments, and powerful mathematics we are lost in a sea of amazing complexity and unintuitive relationships.

I think this makes sense. The two are very closely tangled together, I have a difficult time separating the two and pitting them against each other because they seem to have the same goals.

How many philosophers have employment aside from teaching? Although a great subject to study, the art of introspection is dying. Even psychology claims to be a science, at present its laughable, but it will be, think of philosophy as an art more than a science, the very clever can create from it, redine concepts qand chnage humanity. Philosophy uses no tools costs no money, everyone is one, and ultimity it has historically servered as an educater of the self.

Philosophy; Greek = philia (love) and Sophia (wisdom) “the love of wisdom”

Philosophy began as an “uncritical” science at a time when philosophers were the scientists. Philosophy addresses the kinds of constant issues that have always concerned humans, regarding the human and universal conditions.

We often conclude that a creative person deals with aesthetics; not so. The most creative individuals step outside the cultivated influence of social directives and cultural norms to reflect on beliefs, language, the conceptual, the human condition and all that influence it, for the purpose of providing constructive criticism in a rational way. The goal; to find the consistencies within the universe that might provide a common philosophy by which all humans can live.

Philosophy has evolved greatly and its greatest advances and its greatest challenge for change, comes from science and technology. No science can begin without a philosophy (a theory, based on a belief or some deductive reasoning) The purpose of science is to apply inductive reasoning, the empirical test to prove the theory. So philosophy has evolved into science, but like true evolution, the original species, and the new, are not the same any longer, but both are still branches of the same tree.

The traditional branches of philosophy remain; Logic, metaphysics, epistemology & value, but more have grown.

Today, philosophy continues its attempts to guide and inspire us toward movement into the future and it serves as the critical ‘watch dog’ attempting to ensure that science does not become entrenched in dogmatic thinking or beliefs. It is the skepticism of sound philosophy that questions scientific findings to the point of distraction, for the scientific community, or at least to the point of reminding the scientific community, that science is based on the empirical and NOT on deductive reasoning.

Philosophers are not educated in philosophy, necessarily, to gain employment. Most of the greatest philosophers study it for “the love of wisdom” and they are doctors and lawyers, and mathematicians, educators and scientists.

I think one of the most exciting and brilliant new philosophies today are Process Philosophy. So diverse it has been used in education, religion, marketing, on and on to the most complex sciences of today. While it has a basis as far back as (b. ca. 540 B.C.) with Greek theoreticians Heraclitus of Ephesus its most current and dramatic adaptations come into focus in America with the pragmatist group, C.S. Peirce, William James and, of course, Dewey. It seems to be, however, Alfred Whitehead that brought out the best and most complex nature of process philosophy, with the rise of quantum theory.

So philosophy and science are co-dependents as well they should be. They each have their specialty; for one the specialty is deductive reasoning with a severe knack for skeptecism, for the other it is inductive reasoning which give testimony to the philosophy of mind.

You cannot separate the two without hurting them both.

Check out Process Philosophy, just type it into your search engine and be amazed at it versatility.