Philosophers tend to make a distinction between science and philosophy. People argue that science is an assessment of reality, and is objective while Philosophy is left to interpretation of the why. People generally argue that philosophy is something that cannot be proven. However it seems clear to me that the statement that separates science and philosophy needs to be redefined, because it seems that throughout history science has been left up to interpretation. For example Copernicus and Ptolemy both had theories on the movement of the planets, both of their theories were way of interpreting the data they saw, and at the time they were both equally accurate in making predictions. However scientists eventually adopted Copernican. There was no reason to adopt Copernicus theories seeing as how both theories predicted the exact same results. Scientists adopted a theory based on their own personal preferences not based on objectivity. The fact that science is an interpretation of reality arbitrarily based on the characteristics of scientist seems to push science into the realm of psuedo-science. It is true that science constantly checks itself to make sure it is consistent with things data we observe, however even when we see data that conflicts with theories we hold we often look for excuses to make our theories continue to work.
Can we truly understand a scientific concept if it was adopted because of a personal preference? This is in part response to the positivist blog that science has no need for concepts like morality or personal agendas. Our morality control which theories we are more likely to adopt. Science is controlled by our ethics and often times we determine how one ought to live based on the sciences. Take Aristotle for example he formed ethical assumptions based on things he had observed (granted he was often mistaken). He argued the different roles people should live are based in science. Like women should not become educated because they are not capable of rational thought. This is an ethical idea based on “science”. This demonstrates how science does dictate our ethical behavior and that philosophy does not have a superior power to control what is ethical. In addition one should keep in mind Aristotle is probably forming an ethical idea he formed from science, and that science was probably formed from his own personal leanings. I doubt Aristotle ever even tried to educate a woman but he made a scientific assumption anyway. He did not include women as being capable of rational thought not just because of what he observed, but also because of what his personal ideals were.
I am trying to demonstrate that people cannot simply separate science and philosophy, both are tied together and cannot be separated from each other. The defining lines that attempt to separate them are illusions. Science is just a philosophy.
Jared, I am sensitive to your concern about the role of preference or opinion in science. However, I am under the presupposition that any scientist who does not continually evaluate the insertion of their personal beliefs into scientific theory is not a good scientist. But I can see how if a scientist is looking for certain results, they may be able to find justification in their research for it despite the fact that it may be inconclusive or not altogether true in some fashion.
ReplyDeleteFor D and G, science is not philosophy at all but we may find some value in considering whether or not that is true in real world circumstances. Do you think the distinction between science and philosophy is merely a rhetorical one? or a methodological one?
Concerning the topic of ethics, what it appears your trying to say here is that science ultimately motivates our ethics? More concisely, that without science there is no philosophy? I think you're right to suggest that science answers (or maybe provides reason) questions which can be proven through verifiable methods, but why does science do what it does? In modern context, it seems like science is more concerned with find solutions to problems facing human interest. For instance, because we "value" human life, we make it the task of science to find a cure for cancer. Thus I find it more convincing to say that ethics motivates science. Perhaps more so than we would like to admit. I just have trouble imaging the proofs of science as a causal force which compels us to further philosophical consideration.
ReplyDelete"This demonstrates how science does dictate our ethical behavior and that philosophy does not have a superior power to control what is ethical"
ReplyDeleteHow does science dictate our ethical behavior? There is a distinction between employing the conclusions, legitimate or prejudicial, of science in order to guide one's ethical behavior and employing a methodology to instantiate what is ethical and what is not. Many would disagree that the latter is possible of any methodology. (They would presumably hold that methodology could merely discover moral law, which is a far cry from instantiating or controlling it). Regardless, if there were such a methodology, surely you do not suggest that the methodology of science is capable of this. If that is the case, semantical clarifications are in order.
In any case, D and G give us reason to think that philosophy truly are distinct. They posit that the methodology of philosophy involves the creation of original concepts that are employed to discover/solve problems that have yet to be thought. The characterizations of the philosophical concept seem to contrast with those of concepts employed by science. For instance, the D and G describe the philosophical concept as resisting complete compatibility with other concepts (where the goal of science is to secure complete and total compatibility of theoretical concepts). An effective strategy to show that the methodology of science and philosophy are one and the same would be to analyze these apparent differences in the philosophical and scientific concept and show them to be minimal or nonexistent.
I definitely identify with your concern here, Jared. It seems as though science and philosophy are closely related, however I believe that at times they seek to answer different questions. For example, I don't think science can answer certain moral questions or guide us in a moral direction. On the other hand, I think there are a lot of things philosophers try to answer that science would actually be better suited for. I'm sure we could think of instances where art is the best route as well.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Charlotte -- a Scientist that is merely adopting theories based on personal preference is not really "doing" science correctly. D and G, in differentiating Science from Philosophy and Art seem to be giving it the qualities of universality and objectivity that the concept cannot really have. I think that your example of the two astronomical theories doesn't hold up, either. Copernican astrophysics DOES answer a lot of questions that Ptolemaic astronomy cannot, and did so as soon as it was introduced. It provided logical explanations for phenomena like the retrograde motion of the planets that had been utter mysteries for thousands of years. Furthermore, it was supported by the empiric observations of early stargazers like Galileo, while the Ptolemaic model was not. The Copernican model was adopted based on good, objective science's ability to make universal statements -- not personal preference.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to your second paragraph, I think that it is important to remember that Aristotle was not a positivist, and had no way of accessing positivist ideals. Yes, he did claim a relationship between morality and scientific fact, but we have been discovering reasons that he was wrong to do so since the renaissance. If anything, this lends credibility to the positivist project of eliminating moral claims from science.
Science is not just a philosophy. It has different means, different goals, and, D and G believe, an entirely different medium.
In response to Allen i want to point out that the copernican model was rejected in favor of Galileo. At the time before galileo people had to make a choice between the two tehories which attempted to expalin the same heavenly movement. When Galileo could better explain the movements of planets his theory was acepted. But before that science was not what decided the theory at the time it was personal preference.
ReplyDeleteIn addition morality is a topic that relates to science and fact. Not simple theory. This is why philosophers often find it important to test theories in a mock world. Kant for example looked to see how a world would look if no alms were given to the poor, or if everyone could lie. He saw the facts of the mock world were contradictions or violations of his ethic. He looked to facts or predictions to see if it was right. It was testing in the real world but he would imagine what a real world would be like under those circumstances. Facts, science and theories play an important role in the generation of theories.
Aristotle looks at the real world to create value based ethics based on science. The moral theories of Aristotle were not proven wrong. Only some of his scientific discoveries were. Just because a scientist made a bad prediction does not mean we should throw science and fact out when making moral decisions. If we did we would be throwing out Utilitarianism from the disccussion.
I was thinking Aristotle when i posted originaly.But the harris post by Prof J does a good job demonstrating that science can answer moral quesitons. From a utiliarian standpoint we can see how some things are immoral and how some are immoral based on scientific facts that we can see.
ReplyDelete