Is science superior to philosophy?

Question

At "Beyond Belief '07: Enlightenment 2.0" (http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/) Prof. Peter Atkins made the case that, just as theology must step aside in view of the power of the scientific method, it is time for philosophy to do the same.
I have a lot of respect for Prof. Atkins. However, I am at heart both a philosopher and a scientist. Still, I do agree with him that much of philosophy is obfuscation, pessimism and just a damn nuisance!

I wonder what other scientists think of philosophy?

And to those scientists who are interested in philosophy: can you please point out those philosophers who are actually contributing usefully to human thought?

A meaningless question? Of course it is, if you don't bother to read the details I've provided!

Thank you grayure for your answer, but I purposely put this question in the Science section because I really wanted the opinion of scientists (and particularly scientist-philosophers).

I knew that philosophers would be 'somewhat annoyed' by it. :-)

Doctor Y. I have much sympathy with your views on this matter. But I don't think you've quite understood my question (which may very well be my fault or maybe I have misunderstood your answer!). It is fundamentally about whether a philosophy that has grounded itself in science is superior to one that has not.

Answer 1

Science is like the son of philosophy that went on to accomplish things far beyond what philosophy was ever capable of. The break came with Issac Newton's "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica", which was presented as a philosophical paper, but actually sparked the beginning of mathematical physics. Physics and science has bloomed since then, but philosophy peaked in the 18th-19th century, and probably the only good part of it in the 20th century was the field of mathematical logic. Most of rest in the 20th century is a self-absorbed mind-numbing recursive self analysis and deconstruction, such as the works of Derrida.

Is philosophy dead, then? Not necessarily. While too much of contemporary philosophy centers on this self-absorption, or is in retreat to theology, there are branches in science that still calls for philosophical thinking, such as the field of quantum interpretations. Philosophy can help best in science as the practice of taking a step back from "the math of doing science", and try to understand the overall picture, and how and why we think as we do, particularly with our chronic failure to fully understand certain outstanding mysteries of science. Unfortunately, those truly helpful branches of modern philosophy tend to be swamped with junk philosophy by those who have lost sight of what it is all about.

Answer 2

I'm a philosopher.

Science is a good way at arriving at useful models of the physical world. However, Philosophy can reach parts science cannot reach without descending into imponderables like theology does. It can also be used to address the validity of the scientific method itself and whether the scientific method is actually practiced in science. I'm thinking mainly of Thomas Kuhn here - entrenched opinions changing as a result of younger scientists taking older scientists' jobs, and other social factors. I can think of the absence of a control group and poorly designed research methods. Then there are issues such as the validity of induction and Ockham's Razor and the nature of probability and causation, which i don't think science can address.

Beyond that, there is the question of how to live. Stoicism, existentialism and the like have some independence from established views of the nature of physical phenomena, and are useful to people where science generally has no option but to be silent or will tend to promote philosophically naive thinking.

There are also emergent properties. If science is reductionist and there are such qualities, it cannot address these where they exist in a realm beyond traditional natural science. Examples here are ethics, aesthetics and folk psychology.

Answer 3

Science IS a philosophy. So it would be strange to say that it is superior to a thing that it is a part of.

Of course many scientists don't really think of science that way, just as many people unfamiliar with philosophy picture it as a kind of muddle-headed inconclusive bickering about things with no relation to reality.

One of my favourite definitions of the goal of philosophy is to come to answers rationally with as few leaps of faith as possible. Additionally it seeks to be relevant and correct - things that are less so are ignored and even scorned by (most) philosophers (there are bad philosophers just as there are bad scientists).

Science is perhaps anything that is produced with the scientific method. As well as all those things mentioned in philosophy, it stresses objective and repeatable measurements. Everything true of philosophy of a whole is true of science, and some of the things true of science as a whole is not true of philosophy.

About the only dispute of this situation I've ever seen is the assertion by some that science doesn't have ANY leaps of faith. But how is it that science KNOWS there's an objective universe to measure? How do they know their perceptions are accurate? How do they know their reason is even capable of understanding the universe? How do they know that the universe is reasonable itself? How do they know that universal laws are unchanging so that repeat experiments will have the same results? How do they know their memory and notes are accurate?

These are all part of the core assumptions of science, and most scientists are so accustomed to believing in them that they will look at you a little funny if you ask them about it. There is no way to construct a scientific experiment to test these things... if you do not assume them, science will just simply not work for you (sometimes observed as long ago as Aristotle). And while they may be very, very good assumptions - science has certainly proved to be the most effective way of finding truth that has ever been devised - it is also possible that those assumptions are wrong, even if they are pretty close.

And that is part of what philosophers do that gets them called muddle-headed. They consider what an irrational universe might be like. Or how we would know if our memories are being tinkered with. They work out what it is that can really be known and how it is that we can communicate this knowledge. If you assume all these things, such enterprise is a waste of time. But UNLESS you question them, you will never know if those assumptions are correct.

Is science superior to philosophy? No. It is DEPENDANT upon philosophy and cannot exist without it. Without logic, without epistemology, without metaphysics, what would be left of science? Probably just data without conclusions. The 'what' without a 'how' or 'why'. I can't imagine anyone would even be interested in it at that point.

Answer 4

I like philosophy. It addresses the core questions of what it means to live and why we should do the things we must. In this day and age, though, I believe science is the key to many of the world's problems like AIDS and cancer. Philosophy shouldn't necessarily "step aside", but we should focus on science and always keep the philosophical ideas we have in the back of our minds. Philosophy has to do with ethics and without ethics, our world would turn upside down. Philosophy can answer questions such as WHY should we do research on ______.. e.g. Einstein's theory of general relativity broke new grounds into the essence of matter and time and space... questions philosophers have been trying to answer for thousands of years.

Answer 5

Science can never completely take over. As long as people view the quality of life subjective there and use intellect to interpret sensory information philosophy will always be valid.

Yes, philosophy won't cure physical ailments and such...but it may be a cure to matching people with the kind of activities that make them feel fulfilled...and I seriously doubt science can reach the level of, say, explaining why one person likes a certain color or enjoys a certain job and an other one, even a twin, does not.

Answer 6

I am both a scientist and a theologian, having once been a professional scientist and now a clergyman. I do not see why either has to 'step aside' for the other. Scientists can be just as irrational as religious fundamentalists. Look at all the pseudo-scientific nonsense coming out of the Jolly in Bali if you don't believe me.

Answer 7

Science is here to help us understand the world around us and how it works and improve our lives as a result.

Philosohy is the evolution of thought in all its forms, whether they be spiritual, religious, moral or economic. It helps us to understand and regulate our behavior for the benefit of all.

Speaking as a scientist myself who has on occasion mused philosophically, I would say that, overall, they are both equally important to human developement, but important in different ways.

Answer 8

I think they are about two different things but not mutually exclusive - For example in education androgogy and pedagogy are the science of teaching and epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge - Epistemology definitely informs the science of teaching......... I could write a tome on this but I won't.........

Answer 9

Yes, science superior to anything. Philosophy work with it. My lover has degree in Art and philosophy, he may disagree with me here. Theology no use, philosophy useful.

Answer 10

They do different things. Science is indeed superior to philosophy in scientific matters, and vice versa.