In class on Thursday, someone (possibly Allen) briefly introduced the topic of morality to our discussion of philosophy and science. The point which this person made addressed how science, in the overall the spectrum of knowledge, fails to answer questions that concern issues of morality. Clearly, the topic of morality has always been, and in many ways always will be dividing factor which separates science and philosophy. Nonetheless, I personally find this point the most relevant factor in the debate over philosophy and science.
Instead of approaching the debate of science and philosophy as one of “facts vs faith, more importantly is how we must understand how the debate exposes the difference between positivist and normative thinking. If we consider the overall “agenda” of science, it is evident how most scientists (particularity those in the social sciences) ascribe to a positivist way of thinking. This, of course, being in stark contrast to the normative school thought. (I’m sure most of us are at familiar with the difference between positivist and normative thinking, but to provide a quick review when using the term positivism we simply refer to a descriptive-based method of thought; where as the normative school of thought tends to view the world through a “how to” lens (i.e. how one ought to live or act).
Positivist thinkers do not incorporate issue of morality when making claims, rather positivism merely answers questions that provide descriptions, not prescriptions. I find that D and G would also support this notion of science as a positivist way of thinking in that “science…concerns itself only with states of affairs and their conditions”. In other words, the “states of affairs” and “ their conditions” that D and G refer to is what science makes sense of through a predominately descriptive lens. Evidently this is how the scientific method is best employed, when scientist attempt to understand the “conditions” which make the world’s “state of affairs” through a strict and rigorous methodology that tries eliminate all possibility of error.
In my opinion, the clash between normative and positivist thinking is exactly where science and philosophy part ways. Science is not concerned with a world that prioritizes ethics, rather science wishes only to describe a world where ethical dilemmas exist without providing any prescriptive moral truths. Thus because science relies heavily on the positivist approach, it willfully turns a blind eye to topics that concerns matter of faith and morality. Perhaps science’s failure to provide moral truths is why science “has no need of the concept”. In some ways this is why I find philosophy to be superior to science in that philosophy forms concepts that pertinent to ethics and ultimately help make sense of how one ought to live. Thoughts?
If you are going to argue that philosophy is superior because it develops concepts for ethics etc without objective truth, than you are leading yourself down a slope that puts philosophy and science below theology. As theology forms peoples ethics, meta-ethics, metaphysics, etc, it does far more than what philosophy does. This would make philosophy take a back seat to theology in all cases because they often answer the same questions.
ReplyDeleteMany people would prefer this was not the case because it creates a demand that faith has a priority over objective facts that are seen.
You cannot just say that philosophy is better or worse than science or something else. They are completely different. I may be misinterpreting what you were saying but if that was the claim you were trying to make theology would be what would have to guide all science and philosophy because of it's superiority