Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Why science needs philosophy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Justin Weinberg: "... a multi-authored opinion piece published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... got a boost last Friday when rapper MC Hammer shared it with his 3.2 million followers on Twitter. [...] His recent activities on Twitter show an interest not just in philosophy, but science and engineering as well..."

Why science needs philosophy
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900357116

INTRO: "A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." -- Albert Einstein, Letter to Robert Thornton, 1944

Despite the tight historical links between science and philosophy, present-day scientists often perceive philosophy as completely different from, and even antagonistic to, science. We argue here that, to the contrary, philosophy can have an important and productive impact on science.

We illustrate our point with three examples taken from various fields of the contemporary life sciences. Each bears on cutting-edge scientific research, and each has been explicitly acknowledged by practicing researchers as a useful contribution to science. These and other examples show that philosophy’s contribution can take at least four forms: the clarification of scientific concepts, the critical assessment of scientific assumptions or methods, the formulation of new concepts and theories, and the fostering of dialogue between different sciences, as well as between science and society... (MORE)
Science offers us a way to understand the world based on evidence, but philosophy helps us understand how we fit into the world. Neither can stand alone to help us make sense of life, the two need each other, in my opinion. I'm sure philosophers wish that their field was less disputable and could rest on evidence, but such is life. Scientists might just as well envy philosophers who are ''allowed'' more freedom and subjectivity to work with.

Science seems more reliable for want of a better word, than philosophy. But it doesn't give us much in the way of understanding ethics, love, and other subjective realities that are every bit as important to us as individuals, as objective reality. Humans can't live on science, alone.   Big Grin