Can we say that some scientific propositions’ truth values are conditional to some philosophical assumptions? At least as i can see, to say that some scientific hyphotesis is true we must first assumpt that “the reality is independent from human mind”, which is a philosophical proposition or assumption. If scientific hyphothesis p’s truth value is conditional to truth value of q philosophical assumption, we could say, the possibility of p’s being true can’t be bigger than q’s possibility of being true. Because, in order to p to become true, first the proposition q must be true. What do you think about this?
Yes, pretty much every scientific proposition is dependent upon some philosophical assumptions. We have to assume that we can reason inductively, and that the laws of physics don’t change over time, and that there are laws of physics at all....
Interpreting the physical reality implied by mathematical properties of black holes requires metaphysical assumptions about the speed of light and the properties of spacetime.
Sometimes this is even explicitly evoked. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics require different philosophical assumptions. Different formulations of some probability statements depend on your philosophical conception of probability, determinism, and free will.
Mathematicians assume that their logical and axiomatic systems are not only consistent, but actually true in the world
Scientists have philosophical assumptions all the time. In fact, part of the role of a scientific paradigm is to set forth a common framework in which to do science, including philosophical assumptions.
I would lime to point out that a philosophy conditional is often not the common or frequent approach. Science can often use a different context from philosophy. That is two guys speaking at the water cooler will not likely match sufficent cause context with their conditionals. No assumptions are even required to a conditional.
Where do you get the idea that assumptions are required? Conditionals have multiple context with the same layout. For instance if i pass this course, i can graduate is a conditional that even if the antecedant were true the consequent can still be false. The relationship between the terms is important. Science seems to use conditionals in a cause then result fashion. Not everyone uses conditionals that way. My mother used to tell me "if you dont clean your room, i will murder you in the first degree" i hardly take that as a scientific claim nor is it a promise to factually end my life. To evaluate a conditional you have to consider its context. With a context you can have general rules how to handle them.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that no, there is no coherent sense in which science necessarily depends on philosophy in and of itself.
By the definition of scientific pursuit, when science has become sufficiently robust we will not need philosophy or religion to understand any facet of reality that we encounter. We will simply design an experiment that allows us to test conjectures about the behavior of the facet under consideration, confirming or denying various properties of it until we have answered our question empirically.
Physics today is very far from being able to do this for questions like "what is consciousness", "what is the mind and how does it differ from the brain", "where does the law of gravity come from", etc., but it is an error of pride to claim that because we currently require philosophical conjectures to patch over scientific ignorance we will always need these philosophical patches (even if we cannot currently conceive of a way to do science non-phenomenologically).
It is possible that the nature of reality and its link to our consciousness fundamentally precludes us from being able to answer certain questions, but we are nowhere near being able to claim this with any certainty. If we do reach such a point we could reasonably say that our understanding of science requires some philosophical conjectures, but I still believe it is incoherent to claim that science itself depends on philosophy.