Science vs. Philosophy? How about both?
None other than the great Neil deGrasse Tyson has more than once expressed public disdain for Philosophy (see ""Why Does Neil deGrasse Tyson Hate Philosophy?). I respect and love pretty much everthing he has done and written, but I respectfully disagree with his position on philosophy.
Philosophy is still relevant. Science, as important and awesome as it is, does not, and cannot, address normative issues. There is no way to get to what we 'ought' to do, with science. What is right and what is wrong, in the area of human values, cannot be addressed by science. This is the domain of Philosophy.
Science matters. The rules and findings of science reinforce philosophy. Science affirms Aristotelian philosophy - that the natural world is knowable and that man has the ability to understand and know it. Philosophy matters!
Sadly, [and I think this is what Mr. Tyson is thinking of when he dismisses philosophy] most modern 'philosophy' is a mess. Descarte started the disaster by separating reason from the senses; Spinoza & Liebniz rejected that the senses contribute to knowledge; Locke & Hume denied reason and believed all knowledge was due to the senses; Kant, who attempted a synthesis of both, ended up believing that existence cannot be known in itself. Nietzsche's "will to power" as the ruling principle of all life, and his idea that life on earth has an absolute value is only one absurd 'conclusion" that stems from the forgoing philosophies. They all took philosophy on a roller coaster ride that set philosophy back centuries. Aristotelianism is the only philosophy to withstand the ages.
Aristotle, considered by many to the greatest mind the world has ever known, should be our starting point. He didn't get everything right but he put us on the right path.
Many of the errors in Philosophy are the result of "an attitude of antagonism toward or even contempt for the past - for the achievements of those who have come before." Contemporary philosophers are, for the most part, vastly ignorant of the great works of philosophical tradition prior to the 17th century." Going back to the "distinctions, insights, and formulations explicitly achieved in the tradition of Aristotle and Aquinas" [and others who have followed in this tradition], and identifying and correcting those errors has finally given us an objective philosophy based in reality that offers real world" value.
Questions of logic, critical thinking, and epistemology are also not always answered by science.
Sources: works by Mortimer J. Adler, especially "Little Errors in the Beginning" and "Six Great Ideas" (mostly derived from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas and what is now classified as Philosophical (or Classical) Realism. (see also: Philosophical realism - Wikipedia))
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.After arguing (in an earlier post) for why we need both science and philosophy, here is another look at the negative influence of science on philosophy:
Should we be concerned that philosophy seems to have abrogated its role to mathematics and, especially, to science? During the Classical era, philosophy consisted of four disciplines: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics & Aesthetics. Can it not be argued that these four disciplines are the legitimate domain only of philosophy?
During the Medieval and early modern eras, these remained the areas of study but the attempt to infuse philosophy with religion became a distraction and a distortion. Since the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, science (including neuroscience and psychology) has hijacked and dominated philosophy; math, linguistics, spirituality and religion seem to have also contributed to, and escalated, the distortion.
Can it not be argued that science would not exist if it were not for the effort to understand Metaphysics, and Epistemology? That science validated what philosophy has given us but contributes nothing to philosophy directly? Shouldn’t science be ejected from the conversations about philosophy?
Could it also be the case that philosophy has done its job in these two areas and that there is very little, if anything more it can contribute and that the incredible advance of science affirms this?
If this is the case, shouldn’t philosophy alone, focus on the other two disciplines: Ethics and Aesthetics?
SeekingWisdom
Level 6
Dec 27, 2019
0
I have been through a phase of trying to get rid of the technique of philosophy. Now I am coming to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove it from human affairs. This because people will always open their mouths. They like getting things out and they keep on talking in the hopes of saying something memorable. I have in away become one of those on this site particularly with my love of science and my belief that we can remove religion THROUGH science.
However the weakness of philosophy is that is has no testing mechanism that does not involve everyone in the world reading you potential life changing statement and letting them say what is wrong or right with it. This is a very lengthy process although it has happened with some ancient philosophers.
If we can find ways to shorten this process fine but Philosophy remains weak in changing things. Science takes a while too but it has changed far more and it soon become obvious what you have to change provided you gather the right information and everyone else you are discussing it with is already a scientist. "Science for Everyone" ?anyone?
Mcflewster
Level 8
Dec 21, 2019
0
I agree: "Science for Everyone," but not to the exclusion of Philosophy. We need both, and both are here to stay, whether we agree or not. Just as religion is here to stay, although It has caused great damage to individuals and societies. I am at least encouraged on this last front - the number of "believers" has diminished considerably of the last few decades and the numbers for "secular" have increased.
@SeekingWisdom Secular to me means 'apartheid' and we must aim to eliminate religion and eventually not tolerate it. That will be a long time in the future though and no violence must be used to enforce it.
As the other contributors below have said; philosophy is just as pertinent now as ever. From stem cell research and biotechnology to the use of satellites and algorithms for identification. Important questions also include how to use new abilities; protect from potential risks; what we want to vs need to achieve in the future. We don’t want too many future inventors or scientists with serious regrets about their life works.
girlwithsmiles
Level 8
Dec 19, 2019
1
I believe philosophy has gotten a bad rap in the modern usage.
logos is a subset of philosophy, as is ethos.
science is FOUNDED in philosophy, "the love of knowledge".
HereticSin
Level 7
Dec 19, 2019
2
Recent Visitors 11
Photos
Posted by levanTrue good post
Posted by McflewsterThis is a statement of hope that gives me great inspiration.