Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Why science needs philosophy

#1
C C Offline
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)
Reply
#2
Leigha Offline
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
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Article "Science does not describe reality" (philosophy of science) C C 2 104 Feb 1, 2024 02:30 AM
Last Post: confused2
  Article Faith-based beliefs are inescapable in science (philosophy of science) C C 3 117 Jul 1, 2023 12:44 AM
Last Post: Magical Realist
  Why fuzzy definitions are a problem in the social sciences (philosophy of science) C C 0 135 Oct 28, 2022 03:55 AM
Last Post: C C
  Bayesianism + Philosophy of space and time + Intro to philosophy of race C C 0 75 Aug 7, 2022 03:45 PM
Last Post: C C
  Why condensed matter physicists reject reductionism (philosophy of science) C C 0 102 Jul 1, 2021 06:40 PM
Last Post: C C
  Religion vs Philosophy in 3 Minutes + Philosophy of Science with Hilary Putnam C C 2 614 Oct 16, 2019 05:26 PM
Last Post: C C
  Bring back science & philosophy as natural philosophy C C 0 492 May 15, 2019 02:21 AM
Last Post: C C
  Time for a robust defence of truth in science? (philosophy of science) C C 0 448 Mar 18, 2019 08:15 AM
Last Post: C C
  Blind spot of science is the neglect of lived experience (philosophy of science) C C 4 1,148 Jan 14, 2019 04:11 PM
Last Post: Secular Sanity
  The return of Aristotelian views in philosophy & philosophy of science: Goodbye Hume? C C 1 667 Aug 17, 2018 02:01 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)