Cosmology and Philosophy: Interaction with Each Other

Hi to everyone, especially to the admin for this chance to join this forum! I haven't been able to do it with not explainable reasons for along time, and thankfully to the admin and God I'm here. I had many ideas what to post earlier, today it isn't so clear for me what to post, because the events are constantly changing. Instead of some people I think the idea of cosy personal forums does work. The personality, the individuum is something that must be saved, at least this shelter helps our souls to have a home... I apologize for this long introduction, I'm going to write down some lines about Cosmology and Philosophy interaction.

Usually one subject studies a certain area, a peculiar set of elements, cases, events, another sets, and so on. That subject has a method or a group of methods to find the information out of those sets, or to extract it, to get it somehow. The way how to do it - is a method. That's how I understand the work of subjects.

When it comes to Philosophy or Cosmology it doesn't seem to get clearer to determine it, but at the same moment the semantical aspect or to say a common imagination, common view of it is more or less true. I'd say this moment is quite interesting to pay attention about it, while it doesn't mean it will lead us to correct assumptions.

So, my question is - how Cosmology and Philosophy are interacting with each other? Is their subject the same? Or philosophy studies a set of events larger, than Cosmology? Can it be that what Cosmology studies is something Philosophy doesn't touch? Or what about methods? Can we say that a class of Philosophy methods includes a class of Cosmology methods? 

Thanks.

Cosmology and Philosophy do cover much of the same ground. So the differences can often be tricky to detect. One of the problems with philosophy is that academic philosophy has been inundated with much sophistry and neglect.

Cosmology thus attempts to eradicate much false doctrine, by locating the discussion in the context of astronomy. Now astrophysics suffers from many of the same problems that philosophy has. So it may feel like a futile attempt. Anyone can lay claim to any words or subjects, of course, and then proceed to make a sophistic mess of a genuine topic.

Its also about emphasis.  Philosophy in its pure form, lays great emphasis on method, and discussing various types of methodology, whereas cosmology takes for granted that the scientific method of Newton is axiomatic.

Cosmology also ventures beyond mere physics, as it attempts to unite religion with astrophysics, in order to distance itself from the gross assumptions of materialist 'physics'.

Just as science tried to break away from philosophy during the time of Descartes, in order to get away from sophistry, so cosmology is profoundly connected to psychology. Specifically the psychology of academic hegemony and institutional pseudoscience.

So cosmology tries to distance itself from both sophistry and materialism, by separating itself from philosophy to an extent, and also separating itself from materialism.

Of course others may use the word 'cosmology' differently to how I use it.
My main reason to prefer cosmology is that academic philosophy has lost its objectivity due to the legacy of academic embezzlement, nepotism, and its tendency to be just a bunch of yes-men to academic bureaucracy.

At the moment I can't type a lot, but there are several points I am agree, and want to detail. One of this is that you're definitely right about the consequences or the situation around as philosophy so cosmology in that new mode called 'academics', I mean it turned into that pit of tars as just another puppet community (or whatever). And about the methods. This is I think your point hits the nails – the Cosmology aims a set of methods Philosophy forgets or gets abandoned. I mean sir Isaac Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, and Ptolemaeus drove not the way it is now these days. Not only me or you are watching this, but only certain see it. Seems like either the science has lost its soul, or the scientists have sold theirs.

Methods of Cosmology are something that is... oh... I can't even explain how amazing this them is! A year ago students asked me a lot of a Ukrainian and Russian (and also Soviet) scientist Vladimir Vernadsky, who's also know for his teachings about biosphere and noosphere different detailing and development (can't say I agree many of his theories, but I'm not familiar with them enough). So, it was about cosmological aspects, rather than philosophical. I couldn't answer them, because what could I say there, except for the torsional fields are needed to be opened, and it doesn't seem they've been found yet. Anyway, that was really good to hear more cosmological, than a philosophical question.

I just want to say here for a moment, that Cosmology looks really promising one for philosophical aspects.