The Boundary of Philosophy and Science
by Joseph Rowlands
The history of science begins with a new way of thinking about knowledge. Before the development of science, it was viewed as appropriate for philosophers to make statements about the nature of the world. They might speculate that everything is made of fire, earth, water and air. They might claim that heavier objects drop faster than lighter object, proportional to their weight. They might claim that objects travel in circles, or have natural positions they are drawn to, or that objects will only stay in motion as long as a force is applied to them.
The dawn of science occurred when people started looking at the world to see how it actually worked, instead of surmising how it should work. It was a revolution.
Since then, there has been no need to explain to people the dangers of overstepping with philosophy. If a philosopher starts saying how the world should work, instead of looking at the world to see how it actually does, the problem is clear.
If anything, the danger causes an overreaction. For some, philosophy is not just in danger of overstepping its boundary and making unwarranted claims about science. Instead, it is viewed as a worthless endeavor. It might be entertaining to question everything, including our very existence, but if you want real knowledge, science is viewed as the only real method of acquiring it.
I think this is wrong in principle, even if the way philosophy is conceived by many can in fact make it worthless. But if applied correctly, philosophy is an important tool for understanding the world and integrating knowledge. Science can gather facts and data through observation and experimentation, but that information must be pulled together to formulate theories, make connections, and draw conclusions. And these tasks are not automatic.
The data does not automatically organize. People have to look for patterns, integrate information, draw on previous conclusions, and use the various methods of reasoning to convert data into more general knowledge. These various methods are deeply intertwined with philosophy. Philosophy is needed to determine the legitimacy of these methods. Principles of knowledge and assumptions about the nature of the world, even that there is a nature of the world, are all the domain of philosophy.
A scientist does not run an experiment to determine the laws of logic. He must understand the laws of logic in order to appropriately interpret his experiment. A scientist does not prove that contradictions can't exist in the physical world. If he finds an apparent contradiction, he knows he needs to keep looking. A scientist doesn't prove that if you isolate one variable in an experiment, you can see its effect. How would he prove it? To know what that variable's effect is, he would have needed to discover it by isolating it.
The overstated view that philosophy is worthless and philosophers have nothing important to say in the area of science leads to the opposite problem. Scientists who take this view no longer recognize the boundaries of science, and instead leap across the boundary into philosophical domains.
If a scientist finds conflicting data, he claims that world is contradictory. If he finds his pet theory is not supported by the data, he develops an ad-hoc theory to excuse it. If he develops a complex mathematical theory of the universe that is not supported by any actual data, he shrugs it off. He doesn't worry about the philosophy of science or any theories about proper reasoning.
A scientists might think that it is perfectly alright to extend into the field of philosophy. Science is illuminating, and if they shine the bright light of science into new area, won't we gain more knowledge?
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The standards of science are different from the standards of philosophy, and not just better. Science is concerned with facts. Is something true or not. Is it real or not. Theories are constructed and tested with observation and experimentation. Testing is central to science.
Consider a philosophical subject like morality. Based on an overall moral goal, science could determine whether an action promotes or detracts from that goal. But what about the goal itself? Can science test whether the goal is real or not? True or not? No. The existence of the goal is not the issue. The appropriateness of the goal is. And that is based on how well it integrates with the rest of a worldview. Facts can't refute it, as it isn't a statement about the world. It is more like a command than a statement. You may be able to find evidence to refute a statement. But how do you refute a command? The concept of refutation doesn't apply.
Instead of scientists bringing their more rigorous standards to the topic of philosophy, they will usually just jump into a field where they don't recognize the terrain or realize their own assumptions. This is because science rests on many philosophical assumptions. Why look at the world to figure out what it's like? Because reality is objective. Is observation and experimentation valid? If you accept the validity of induction and sense perception.
There is a huge number of philosophical premises that science assumes. Objectivity is possible. Knowledge is possible. The Law of Identity is true. Contradictions don't exist in reality. Reality has a nature. Causality exists. There are no uncaused events. Our thoughts about the world are within our control and not mere illusions. Deduction works. Induction works. Logical rules work the way we think they do.
A scientists who takes all of this for granted and plunges into philosophy will not appreciate the fact that he is making assumptions that may not be true. He won't grasp that he can't legitimately prove a point if he's unintentionally assuming it. A scientist that proves induction is real by pointing at all of the real world examples of how we gained knowledge from it would be one such example.
So we have two problems, opposites in some ways, but the same in others. In one case, philosophers overstep into the field of science. In the other case, scientists overstep into the field of philosophy. In order to avoid both problems, the boundary between philosophy and science needs to be clearer.
Discuss this Article (9 messages)
|
