| | I was not saying that philosophy is an extension of science, but rather that it is a science. That is, it is the use of reason to discover knowledge. The special sciences do the same thing. I would not say science (that is, the special sciences) is an extension of philosophy so much as it is a result of a scientific (in other words, reason-derived) philosophy.
It is true that Ayn Rand, like most people, does often speak of philosophy and science as separate aspects of the quest for knowledge. But here, she is using the term SCIENCE in the narrower sense. Just as often, she uses the wider sense, the one I am using here:
THE AYN RAND LEXICON:
SCIENCE: “It is not the special sciences that teach man to think; it is philosophy that lays down the epistemological criteria of all special sciences.” (Note the qualifier “special.” It implies that philosophy is a science.)
PHILOSOPHY: “... Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence.”
ESTHETICS: “The esthetic principles which apply to all art ... are defined by the science of esthetics. ...”
THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS:
“Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining [a code of values].”
Consequently, philosophy is the best example of science as a method of sight rather than a method of communication. Truths are arrived at by thought, and not by such things as testability and quantifiability, which are concepts related only to some of the special sciences as currently practiced in some situations. To define science by such things is to give a definition by nonessentials.
Another good example is Einstein’s “thought experiments.” Of course, he had to test the resulting theories to arrive at certainty, and to convince others of their truth; but my point is that the pure thinking aspect of his work is just as much scientific investigation as any physical experiment.
Rodney Rawlings
|
|
