Having argued, at the end of the previous section, that science as such needs philosophy, I will now look at the implications of this statement for education. That is, I would like to add a few reflections about how scient ists need philosophy, and how this is to be reflected in education. Let me start by examining what does and does not follow from what we have established so far.
From the assertion that science needs philosophy in some way it does not follow that each individual scientist should be a skilled philosopher, or in fact should have any kind of developed skill in philosophy. A scientist faced with a philosophical question in the course of her research might choose to neglect it and still do a relatively good job at her research, at least for some time. Also, despite the fact that every scientist has a philosophy that is at least weaved into the presuppositions and goals of the given theory or paradigm that the scientist works in, perhaps appended with her own private reflections, it is true that science can be done for the sake of science with neglect of the philosophical presuppositions and for exclusively utilitarian goals.
Obviously, utilitarian values do not offer a sustainable basis for science as a whole and for maintaining public trust in the meaningfulness of fundamental research. But for the individual scientist, they might just suffice. Furthermore, even in the case that the scientist has her own philosophical views, she is free to keep them private and not let them interfere with the research she is doing.
In fact, scientists may work together on the same scientific problem while sustaining different ontological or epistemic presuppositions. Philosophy may be even less relevant for the applied scientist although, especially for her, ethical issues will be important!
So, for all practical purposes, the individual scientist might get away with neglecting philosophy. What use, one might cynically enquire, will the laser physicist have in formal training in philosophy? Even taking the point that every scientist in fact makes use of philosophical thought of one kind or another—a set of ideas about the scientific practice, about the nature of the objects and relations that constitute her subject matter, etc.
There is no need for receiving specific training in philosophical matters. Thus philosophy courses of the kind I have in mind cannot be seen as necessary prerequisites for any single scientist. But I argue that they are useful for them, and that scientists would benefit from them: and so, that science programmes ought to have such courses —again, without going into details, which would require a separate paper.
So, this suggests the following question. Indeed, particularly in the context of liberal arts and sciences, it is key that education reflects that connection. Science students in modern liberal arts and sciences programs should receive training in philosophy specific to their particular sciences. The kind of training I am arguing for here goes beyond general courses such as logic and philosophy of science, which are very important and are already part of some liberal arts and sciences curricula, as electives at least.
It also goes beyond ethics, which is obviously an important training for scientists—although here one should go beyond the theoretical cocktail-party way in which some of these courses are taught, since their relevance often escapes the student.
Perhaps such courses should be based more on actual scientific episodes and practices. But ethics is in itself a very large subject, and I have something else in mind here that more directly relates to my case studies: namely, philosophical reflection specific to each of the sciences, in fact specific to each particular science course a student takes.
And I would argue that such materials could also be part of every science course, rather than separate courses, and so are best taught by scientists. If one is intrepid, one might wish to add a course on theory construction: but I admit, this will not be easy, though it could be very beneficial at the graduate level.
Historically, it has been a goal of liberal arts and sciences education to educate the social, political, and intellectual elites. Selective admission procedures, small class settings, and emphasis on basic logical, argumentative, and rhetorical skills do confirm this vision.
Clearly, some of these leaders will also be leaders in their respective scientific fields, whether in applied or in fundamental science. So, if the liberal arts and sciences aim at training the intellectual elites of the future, in particular they should be interested in the scientists who can really make a difference in research and scientists who will be the leaders of other scientists. The distinction goes back to Einstein, who wrote in a letter letter to Robert A.
Thornton 7 December , EA pp. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historical 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.
Second, he calls this freedom of mind the mark of distinction between a mere specialist and a real seeker after truth. Smolin explicates this as follows. He divides scientists into seers and scientists who are master craftspeople. The master craftspeople are the ones who are very good at their particular trade, but have never seen a forest—be out of lack of interest or lack of sight.
Smolin relates these two categories of scientists to the two types of science in Kuhn—normal science and revolutionary science. Footnote 10 In normal science, all the details of a given paradigm are explored and worked out. They explore the mine, excavate the tunnels, take out the valuable jewels in a mine that was found and planned by others. Revolutionary science, on the other hand, is the task of going into new territory, of doing the exploratory work required to establish radical new ideas; that is the work of the seers, the people who can think out of the existing paradigm—although never entirely—who can point out weaknesses in theories and propose new ways forward.
Freedom of mind, among other things, is one of the characteristics of such scientists, and knowledge of history and philosophy contribute to that free way of thinking. For a different perspective on this topic, see Kitchener This is not what Hawking does, and the reason for it will become clear in the next section.
He does not ignore philosophy, but engages with it. I thank an anonymous referee for suggesting some of the above criticisms of current philosophy. For some examples, see Ladyman and Ross : pp. For the importance of tools and instrumentation, contexts, and power in different science cultures, see Galison and Stump and Galison Both the analytic and continental traditions have of course been concerned with analysis of science and of its results.
This holds true despite the fact that Kepler was one of the initiators of mechanistic science, and that also Newton in various ways held mechanical views.
He regarded his theory of gravity as a phenomenological, inductively generalized law of nature that would nevertheless require further explanation as to its causes. See for examples the debates about the status of the wave-function in quantum mechanics: it is an important question whether the wave-function is a real entity existing in the world, or whether it merely represents the information about a system. This is a question that the formalism by itself does not answer, but nevertheless is important for how quantum mechanics is interpreted and used.
Quoted by Smolin , pp. For there are important historical disanalogies too, which nevertheless do not militate against the point I am making about education. Bacciagaluppi, G. Quantum theory at the crossroads. In Reconsidering the solvay conference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buckley, P.
Glimpsing reality: Ideas in physics and the link to biology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Google Scholar. Buijs, M. Willemsen, R. Budel: Damon. Dijksterhuis, E. De mechanisering van het wereldbeeld. Oxford University Press Einstein, A. The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press present. Galison, P. Image and logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. The disunity of science. Boundaries, contexts, and power. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.
Hawking, S. The grand design. Kaiser, D. How the hippies saved physics. Kitchener, R. The world view of contemporary physics. Does it need a new metaphysics? Krauss, L. Kuhn, T. The structure of scientific revolutions pp. Ladyman, J. Every thing must go.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Book Google Scholar. Smolin, L. The trouble with physics. Westfall, R. The construction of modern science. Mechanisms and mechanics.
Both Science and Philosophy deal with the intricacies of logic and reasoning but they differ in the way each perceives and deal with the knowledge in question. The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals with hypothesis testing based on factual data whereas philosophy deals with logical analysis based on reason.
Science is conceived from philosophy and is thus, dependent on its theories, to begin with. Science also differs from philosophy as it deals with proving the hypothesis related to natural phenomenon whereas philosophy is a broad term that includes questions concerning human existence and the realities surrounding us.
Modern Science is a stream of education that comprises natural sciences, social sciences, formal sciences, and applied sciences whereas the main branches of philosophy include epistemology, metaphysics, mind and language, value theory, logic, science and mathematics, and history of philosophy.
Skip to content The debate between science and philosophy is a fight between humanitarians and scientists that continues over the decades. Comparison Table Between Science and Philosophy. What is Science? Scientists distrust and dislike philosophy though it is a fact that philosophy has an important place in the mosaic of human endeavor. It is a fact that the world is shaped by researches in science and not in philosophy, but it is equally true that philosophy has an effect on scientific endeavors.
Through this article, let us make a quick comparison between science and philosophy. Philosophy can be defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge , reality , and the existence. Since ancient civilizations, it was Philosophy that explained everything in the world.
If one studies the explanation of a single phenomenon by a philosopher, it is clear that one does not need any special intelligence or training to understand the discourse. Everything is explained in philosophy in everyday words and logic that anyone with average intelligence can understand.
Defining philosophy is not so simple. It is an activity that utilizes reason to explore and understand issues nature of reality metaphysics , rational thinking logic , limits of our understanding epistemology , moral good ethics , the nature of beauty aesthetics etc.
Science also takes answers and proves them as objectively right or wrong. Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy, while only some objective questions can be related in science. Aside from finding answers, philosophy also involves generating questions. Meanwhile, science is only concerned with the latter. Philosophy creates knowledge through thinking; science does the same by observing. Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy, which can be applied to many extensive areas of discipline.
Cite APA 7 Franscisco,. Difference Between Science and Philosophy. Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects. MLA 8 Franscisco,. Yes we may be able to recreate the same conditions we understand to be necessary to accomplish an end-goal, but…. Yes, we can repeat the same scenario and call it fact. But when variables change, it cannot always be counted as fact.
When we go from the mere room, into an entire neighborhood, for example. Some things are the same, some are not, and depending, that could quite well alter the end result of the experiment. What our science has done, or tried to do, is find the truth of our planet, in order to be king. So if that Truth has been kept hidden, for the purpose of control, what makes the world think they know anything??
But again, we look too small to start our experiment…. We only consider self in most applications. All people, everywhere, have been manipulated, and taught to defend their slavemasters, rather than suffer for the Truth.
That is the one key thing science does not have…. Truth is stronger than anything else whatsoever. Lies are allowed. But Truth empowers one to separate from the lies. The lie very well may try to silence the Truth, but it cannot disprove its existence. Oops, look deeply into your motives here. Science is diametrically different from philosophy. Science treats bias the self-serving agenda we bring to observation as noise, as subjective noise of vantage that it then rigorously filters away such that a more and more compact map may be built of reality despite what we might want or fear reality to be.
Philosophy seeks the amplification of subjectivity by superimposing a self-serving self-agreeable map over and onto reality. Science is the objective salve made necessary by subjective ick that is philosophy. Science is a branch of philosophy as feminism is a branch of rape.
0コメント