The rejection of Aristotelian physics for Newtonian mechanics is often seen as science triumphing over philosophy, but it’s really philosophy evolving into science. Each paradigm shift, from Boyle’s chemistry to Darwin’s evolution, represents a collaboration between empirical observation and conceptual reasoning. Philosophy sharpens the questions, and science refines the answers, creating a feedback loop that drives human knowledge forward.
I liked the idea that review papers in science often resemble philosophical treatises more than empirical studies. Also, that philosophy excels at framing the "big questions," while science specializes in finding tangible answers.
Empirical scientific methods and philosophical musings absolutely feed into each other! In Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift model, philosophy contributes both in the pre-science phase, as you allude to here, and also in the model crisis phase, finding gaps in current theories. I love exploring similar progressions in my writing on this platform. Recently, I’ve been captivated by Sara Imari Walker’s Assembly Theory hypotheses as a pre-paradigmatic field of science. She’s trying to explain the origins of life!
It seems so plain to me that science and philosophy are continuous with one another is philosophy that I have a hard time understanding why so many people, in both domains, are so keen to demarcate. Or rather, I know full well why they are keen to demarcate, it’s because it’s strategically useful for them, and it pisses me off.
This is excellent. I am working on an issue right now that encapsulates this point perfectly. The debate on free will between scientists and philosophers.
Great piece. You've highlighted the positive influences between science and philosophy, but I think bad philosophy has very potent effects on science, too - particularly in philosophy of the mind. I think there are some scientific fields, such as the study of perception and consciousness, where thinking hard about the philosophical underpinnings is not a luxury; it is critical to avoid heading off into warped scientific conclusions.
Thanks! I think you’re right that there are a lot of fields where thinking had about the philosophical underpinnings isn’t a luxury—and I think scientists are often doing the heavy lifting on this
I think it is very hard to do good philosophy of the mind from an armchair perspective.
It feels like it should be easy, but it's like trying to understand computers from the GUI.
I am wary of suggesting that those with access to the back-end of cognition are doing the heavy lifting, because it under-values the good work of many philosophers, but ... I am very skeptical that any decent insights can come from pure introspection. My personal belief is that the cognitive structure of brains doing the philosophy comes into play, which is a perspective cannot be gained from the front-end. The mind feels so unified from within.
“Both empirical methods and conceptual methods have their complementary places here, and the fact of the matter is that scientists regularly engage in both. And they do so on questions of philosophical relevance”
Yes - the complementarity. Niels Bohr was all in on this, being very “philosophical” about the whole quantum world. Einstein did not like that too much. Bohr wanted to accept that there is a limit to our understanding of our findings, but Einstein would not accept that. He was in that sense a Newtonian physicist. He would never agree to “Shut up and calculate”
But who then, is the philosopher - Einstein who insisted on understanding or Bohr who insisted on the imposibility of understanding?
Like this lime a lot: science is philosophy sort of in the same way birds are dinosaurs. Its also nice to realize I currently live on the land that birthed the founders...
Great timing! This afternoon, I finished the very last chapter in the last book of the last philosophy module of my degree. The chapter was on the philosophy of science. I have to say that this was better.
The fact that most scientists earn Ph. Ds (Doctorates of Philosophy) is probably important. I think you could argue that science is a merging of two schools of philosophy… empiricism and rational logic. In classical science, we observe the world (empiricism), draw a inference (inductive reasoning), which eventually leads to a theory (deductive reasoning) that gets tested (empiricism). Modern science adds more statistical modeling and probabilities that again must be tested as a theory (deductive reasoning and empiricism). Thought provoking and enjoyable read!
The rejection of Aristotelian physics for Newtonian mechanics is often seen as science triumphing over philosophy, but it’s really philosophy evolving into science. Each paradigm shift, from Boyle’s chemistry to Darwin’s evolution, represents a collaboration between empirical observation and conceptual reasoning. Philosophy sharpens the questions, and science refines the answers, creating a feedback loop that drives human knowledge forward.
I liked the idea that review papers in science often resemble philosophical treatises more than empirical studies. Also, that philosophy excels at framing the "big questions," while science specializes in finding tangible answers.
Empirical scientific methods and philosophical musings absolutely feed into each other! In Thomas Kuhn’s paradigm shift model, philosophy contributes both in the pre-science phase, as you allude to here, and also in the model crisis phase, finding gaps in current theories. I love exploring similar progressions in my writing on this platform. Recently, I’ve been captivated by Sara Imari Walker’s Assembly Theory hypotheses as a pre-paradigmatic field of science. She’s trying to explain the origins of life!
Good post, of course.
It seems so plain to me that science and philosophy are continuous with one another is philosophy that I have a hard time understanding why so many people, in both domains, are so keen to demarcate. Or rather, I know full well why they are keen to demarcate, it’s because it’s strategically useful for them, and it pisses me off.
This is excellent. I am working on an issue right now that encapsulates this point perfectly. The debate on free will between scientists and philosophers.
Great piece. You've highlighted the positive influences between science and philosophy, but I think bad philosophy has very potent effects on science, too - particularly in philosophy of the mind. I think there are some scientific fields, such as the study of perception and consciousness, where thinking hard about the philosophical underpinnings is not a luxury; it is critical to avoid heading off into warped scientific conclusions.
Thanks! I think you’re right that there are a lot of fields where thinking had about the philosophical underpinnings isn’t a luxury—and I think scientists are often doing the heavy lifting on this
I think it is very hard to do good philosophy of the mind from an armchair perspective.
It feels like it should be easy, but it's like trying to understand computers from the GUI.
I am wary of suggesting that those with access to the back-end of cognition are doing the heavy lifting, because it under-values the good work of many philosophers, but ... I am very skeptical that any decent insights can come from pure introspection. My personal belief is that the cognitive structure of brains doing the philosophy comes into play, which is a perspective cannot be gained from the front-end. The mind feels so unified from within.
What a delightful read 😄 entertaining and insightful thanks for that✌️
“Both empirical methods and conceptual methods have their complementary places here, and the fact of the matter is that scientists regularly engage in both. And they do so on questions of philosophical relevance”
Yes - the complementarity. Niels Bohr was all in on this, being very “philosophical” about the whole quantum world. Einstein did not like that too much. Bohr wanted to accept that there is a limit to our understanding of our findings, but Einstein would not accept that. He was in that sense a Newtonian physicist. He would never agree to “Shut up and calculate”
But who then, is the philosopher - Einstein who insisted on understanding or Bohr who insisted on the imposibility of understanding?
Like this lime a lot: science is philosophy sort of in the same way birds are dinosaurs. Its also nice to realize I currently live on the land that birthed the founders...
Great timing! This afternoon, I finished the very last chapter in the last book of the last philosophy module of my degree. The chapter was on the philosophy of science. I have to say that this was better.
The fact that most scientists earn Ph. Ds (Doctorates of Philosophy) is probably important. I think you could argue that science is a merging of two schools of philosophy… empiricism and rational logic. In classical science, we observe the world (empiricism), draw a inference (inductive reasoning), which eventually leads to a theory (deductive reasoning) that gets tested (empiricism). Modern science adds more statistical modeling and probabilities that again must be tested as a theory (deductive reasoning and empiricism). Thought provoking and enjoyable read!
Hmmm, cabbage cools the body for wine is moist & hot.