Philosophy vs. Science: Understanding Their Unique Roles
Philosophy vs. Science: Understanding Their Roles
There are two positions on philosophy today:
1st Position: Philosophy is Outdated
- Some authors claim that philosophy has lost importance and has been displaced by science.
- Science explains reality and transforms the world, not philosophy.
- Initially, philosophy had a universal character, but over time, various sciences have become independent, leaving philosophy with a residual role, dealing only with issues neglected by other sciences.
- Philosophy has lost importance because philosophers never agree among themselves. There is no agreement on the method used, unlike science, which uses an empirical method. Philosophy uses many methods: dialogue, intuition, empirical methods, etc.
- There is also no agreement about philosophical doctrines; many philosophical currents contradict each other.
2nd Position: Philosophy is Current and Valid
Proponents of this view argue that philosophy provides the following:
- Philosophy has not been replaced by science, nor will it ever be, because they are two different disciplines. Philosophy is distinguished by its limit view, always trying to go beyond where other sciences stop.
- Example: Physics studies movement; philosophy questions what movement is.
- Philosophy differs from science in terms of method. Science uses a unique method, the empirical method (only considering observed data). Philosophy uses many methods: dialogue, intuition, the empirical method, etc.
- Philosophy is distinguished by its universal character. It considers all aspects of reality, while science studies only specific areas. Philosophy also has an interdisciplinary nature, relating information from different sciences.
- Philosophy remains current and important because it has a practical dimension: it helps us to live. Regardless of historical context and scientific and technological revolutions, people often feel disoriented, and philosophy helps them navigate life.
Ordinary Knowledge: Everyday Understanding
Ordinary knowledge is constructed from data from the senses and common opinions. It addresses varied issues posed by life.
It is based on:
- Personal experience: We know many things because we have lived them.
- Direct observation of the natural and social environment: We know many things because we have observed them.
- Generalizations: We tend to make general conclusions about observed facts.
- Reliable witnesses: We know many things because our parents, grandparents, relatives, neighbors, etc., have told us.
- Traditions: Traditions play a key role in the transmission of ordinary knowledge.
- Data provided by science and disseminated by the media: Many scientific theories are simplified and popularized by TV, radio, newspapers, etc.
Features:
- Ordinary knowledge has a variable degree of rationality; it is not entirely rational. It denotes a fact but does not explain its cause, or it does so inadequately, without verification.
- Example: It is believed to be good to live near swamps because the air is corrupted.
- Ordinary knowledge is unsystematic: it does not complement each other, and is often contradictory.
- Example: Proverbs that contradict each other: “Who does not risk does not gain” vs. “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”
- Ordinary knowledge is uncritical: it is not reviewed or criticized; it is accepted even if false.
- Example: The false belief that it is bad to shower when you have a fever.
- Ordinary knowledge is practical: it guides our actions and behavior, making it valuable in life.
Science: The Most Reliable Knowledge
Science is the most reliable kind of knowledge we have. It offers a rational, systematic review of the world around us (common characteristics with philosophy), but science has some special characteristics:
- Scientific knowledge is objective or impartial: The result of scientific research does not depend on the researcher’s will; the result is what it is.
- Science is methodical: It does not investigate randomly but follows the steps of a scientific method.
- Science is rigorous: It is a result of applying the scientific method.
- Science is empirical: It only studies phenomena that have been observed.
- Science is replicable: The result of scientific research is valid only if it is replicated by another group of researchers and yields the same result.
- Science is public: Any scientific theory must be published in journals and conferences, or it is not considered scientific.
Classification of Science
Science is traditionally classified into two groups:
1. Formal Sciences
There are only two formal sciences: logic and pure mathematics.
Features:
- Formal sciences do not deal with events that happen in the world or their relationships, but with ideas that relate symbols. (Example: 2 + 2 = 4)
- Formal sciences are not based on observation or experimentation but on the internal coherence of the system.
2. Empirical Sciences
They are classified into two groups:
- Empirical natural sciences: physics, chemistry, biology, and geology.
- Empirical social sciences: history, economics, psychology, sociology, political science, law, etc.
Features:
- They deal with events that happen in the world and study their relationships.
- Their statements are based on observation and should be verified through experience, new observations, and experiments.
The Scientific Method
The Greek word “method” means “way forward.” A method is a set of steps that guide scientific research, but the method has been confused with scientific research, as they are two different things. Throughout history, there have been several methods; we will study the following three:
1. Deductive Method
This is the method of the formal sciences. It involves obtaining a specific or individual conclusion from initial information that is universal or general.
Example:
Initial information (universal):
All men are mortal (statement)
Socrates is a man (particular statement)
Conclusion (particular character): Socrates is mortal (particular statement)
(Deduct + to -)
Deduction is a reliable method because the conclusion is already implicitly in the data base, and if these are true, so is the conclusion.
2. Inductive Method
This was the method of empirical science but was rejected because it is not entirely reliable. It consists of obtaining a universal or general conclusion from initial information that has a particular character or event.
Example:
Laina is 16 years old
Pilar is 16 years old
Ariadna is 16 years old
Initial information.
All students in 1B are 16 years old: Conclusion: universal character.
Advantages: The inductive method allows for universal laws, necessary principles for science, as it is a form of generalization.
Disadvantages: The inductive method is not reliable because the initial information has a particular character that has been tested, but the conclusion has a general or universal character that has not been fully tested.
3. Hypothetico-Deductive Method
This is the current method of empirical science; it consists of four steps:
1. Observation of reality and formulation of a problem: Collect observations and data concerning a problem to solve it through scientific investigation.
Example: Obese people have worse health than those who are not. How can obesity be prevented?
2. Formulation of a hypothesis: The scientist uses their imagination to propose a problematic explanation that must be verified to be considered scientific. The scientist gives a provisional explanation of the problem.
Example: Hormone X prevents obesity.
3. Verification of the hypothesis: There are two procedures to test a hypothesis:
1. Through testing: This involves conducting experiments and collecting new observations that support the hypothesis, showing that it is true.
Example: Injecting hormone X into rats on a specific diet. If the rats do not gain weight even if they eat all day, the hypothesis is confirmed by experience. Otherwise, if the rats continue to gain weight, the hypothesis is rejected, and a new one is formulated.
2. Through falsification: This involves conducting an experiment or collecting an observation that demonstrates that the hypothesis is false. This means trying to go against the initial assumptions, looking for a fact that contradicts them. If none is found, the hypothesis is confirmed and becomes a scientific law.
4. Formulation of a law: The hypothesis, once confirmed by verification or falsification, becomes a scientific law, a definitive explanation of the problematic fact under investigation.
Example: The influence of hormone X on obesity.
The Advancement of Science
In this section, we will study whether science progresses over time or not. We will look at two positions:
1st Position: Continuous Progress of Science
Authors who advocate falsification as a method to test a hypothesis claim that no law or scientific theory can be considered definitively true because it could be falsified in the future. For falsificationists, science progresses because new scientific theories that replace earlier ones, shown to be false, are better: they better explain reality, present fewer problems, and come closer to the truth.
2nd Position: Science Does Not Progress, It Just Changes
According to these authors, when a scientific theory has been falsified, it is not replaced by a new theory. In any historical moment, there is an established scientific model:
Scientific paradigm: This always contains anomalies, unresolved problems. However, the scientific theory is not abandoned. But when there are economic, political, and scientific interests, anomalies cause a scientific revolution. In a scientific revolution, the scientific method is replaced by a new one, but this change does not imply any improvement. This is because scientific models are incompatible; they are too different to be verified, and all have advantages and disadvantages.
Throughout history, there have been several sharp scientific revolutions:
- 1st: The geocentric system of Aristotle replaced by the heliocentric system of Ptolemy and Copernicus.
- 2nd: The Newtonian system that unifies terrestrial and celestial mechanics and conceives space and time as absolute.
- 3rd: The Einstein system that understands time and space as relative.