“

Science is more than a body of knowledge. It’s a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe.

~ Carl Sagan, American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, and author.

Outside the classroom, how often do we reflect on what effect science has on our worldview?  What about the role science has played in influencing our approach to moral issues, such as applied ethics and euthanasia, or animal testing?

At a certain level, we understand certain branches of science - biology, because we are, ourselves, living organisms; chemistry, from cooking to knowing not to use bleach with Pine-Sol when cleaning the bathtub; and botany, for anyone who has ever planted a garden.  These are the everyday applications of science in our lives.

However, how does Science work in conjunction with Philosophy? The Philosophy of Science is a branch of Philosophy that overlaps in part with epistemology and metaphysics. How does a discipline that seeks the truth through empirical observation answer the fundamental philosophical questions about the meaning of life?  

• Why am I here?
• What is my purpose?
• Am I good person?
• Do I have choices/what does it mean to be free?
• Is this all there is?

If you were seeking answers, to these preceding questions, how do you think Science would provide them?

Defining Science Through Philosophy’s Lens

At this point in your educational journey, you have probably taken at least one science course, so you are familiar with it from the point of view that it is chiefly concerned with using observation and experimentation for the study of the world around us. The branches of science, such as biology, chemistry, and physics are commonly part of the secondary school experience.

But the ‘philosophy of science’ is probably not a subject area you’ve encountered before, and the term may seem a bit contradictory since Philosophy and Science appear to be very different.

As mentioned earlier in this activity, the Philosophy of Science is a branch of Philosophy that overlaps in part with epistemology and metaphysics. It is concerned with the foundations, methodologies, and implications of science, scientific results, and the nature of scientific knowledge. In particular, the focus of this branch deals with questions related to:

• what qualifies as science;
• the reliability of scientific theories; and
• the ultimate purpose of science.

Humans have always looked for meaning and understanding in the material world around them. The Pre-Socratics, for example, proposed questions that rejected mythological explanations, and sought out rational explanations for the unifying element in all things. Their questions led to some of the beginnings of metaphysics and epistemology.

So from the earliest beginnings, Science has relied on observations and experimentation of the natural world; the Philosophy of Science deals with the interpretation and logic of the findings, and what they mean, in a greater context, to our understanding of the world around us.

Building a Foundation of Science: What Qualifies as ‘Science?’

Science is both a body of knowledge and a process.  It requires tools of measurement, procedures for testing, and working theories that can be tested to gather data concerning the results.

What we currently know and define as ‘science’ though is a fairly modern construct, dating only from the nineteenth century. Prior to this, ‘science’ was a synonym for ‘knowledge of study. ’ It was part of what was then known as ‘natural philosophy(definition:Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.).’ Our modern meaning of ‘science’ only came into being when experimental science(definition:Science based on experimental research that plays the role of testing hypothesis to demonstrate a known truth, typically in controlled laboratory settings.) and the scientific method(definition:The scientific method is a process for experimentation that is used to explore observations and answer questions.) became part of the process in the search for understanding and knowledge. This means that the early roots of Science are closely entwined with the discipline of Philosophy. And to extrapolate further, as we discussed in our units on Metaphysics and Epistemology, this connection with Philosophy also means that there is a connection with Religion.

So how does science differ from religion and philosophy?

What qualifies something as ‘science’ and not as any other discipline or system of inquiry?

For that answer, we need to examine the foundation of science as a discipline, beginning with Aristotle and the natural philosophers.

The Connection Between Science and Philosophy

To demonstrate the connection between the two disciplines, the following interactive learning object will give you a quick explanation of just a few concepts associated with the philosophy of science. During this unit, we will address each of these concepts and go into further detail about them.

Long Description

Long Description

In short, the eschewing of mysticism and Aristotelian logic, and the move towards empirical proof through observation, is what finally separated the discipline of Science from Philosophy or a system of Faith.

Building a Foundation of Science: The Reliability of Scientific Theories and Truths

The focus of scientific endeavours has always been synonymous with the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

However, as Descartes pointed out, relying on our senses to observe ‘the truth’ may not always be reliable. Our senses cannot always be trusted, our judgement is not always objective, and - how do we really know that what we perceive to be true, is actually true?

Saying that something is a “scientific truth” can be problematic for this very reason - there is, as Descartes said, an epistemic issue here: how we know what we know? Also, what assurance do we have that a truth has been arrived at in a verifiable way?

The other issue here is one of semantics. If we say that there is a ‘scientific truth,’ does this imply that there is another type of ‘truth’ possible, as well? Herein lies the demarcation problem - where pseudoscience and mysticism can impinge upon Science and plant a seed of doubt and distrust.

And there are other forms of knowledge that have their own ‘truths’, such as ‘spiritual truths(definition:A collection of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and humanity’s place in it.)’ and ‘cultural truths(definition:Truths which reflect the common beliefs and values of a particular culture.).’

In Philosophy, for example, one speaks about the coherence(definition:A coherence theory bases the truth of a belief on the degree to which it coheres ("hangs together") with all the other beliefs in a system of beliefs.) and correspondence(definition:The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.) theories of truth. So in the Philosophy of Science, how does one discuss ‘truth?’

To begin, in Science, ‘truths’ are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through experimentation. Unfortunately, ‘truth,’ and an understanding of what ‘truth’ is, is compromised by the difference between the common definition rather than a scientific one.

Variations of Truth

Along with this ‘war of words,’ is the problem of what we mean when we speak of a ‘scientific theory.’

You may have heard that a theory is just someone's arbitrary opinion and not a fact. In science, a theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. It is not a random opinion but an educated guess situated within the scientific method. 

When a scientific theory is said to be ‘true,’ it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence available at that time. Yes certainly, some theories change over time, and naysayers will use this as ‘evidence’ that a scientific theory can’t be true if it is needs to be modified or corrected due to new evidence or better equipment. For example, when Newton proposed his theory of gravitation in 1666, he based it on observable facts using the equipment that he had available in his time.

His theory was a scientific truth.

Skip a few hundred years and Albert Einstein tests Newton’s theories using the equipment now at his disposal. He comes up with observations that reveal some slight discrepancies. Einstein incorporates this new information and proposes his Theories of Relativity - and this is the new scientific truth. This doesn’t mean that the truth changed, it just became more accurate.

Building a Foundation of Science: The Ultimate Purpose of Science

Most of us carry in our heads a hodgepodge of scientific views, religious views, and philosophical views, and they often feel the same—because they are learned, understood, and mentally encoded in similar ways. Contrary to popular belief, these views don’t have to be in conflict because they don’t necessarily focus on the same things. For example, the concept of a Supreme Being or the nature of the soul is the realm of religion - there is no empirical, observable method or experiment by which Science could prove (or disprove) whether either exists:

• Science is concerned with observable natural phenomenon.
• Philosophy is concerned with the nature of humankind, its existence and meaning.
• Religion is concerned with the spiritual, moral, ethical beliefs of humankind.

And while there can be areas of overlap, ultimately the purpose of science is to increase our understanding of the world in which we live.

“

The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.

~ Carl Sagan

Think about some of the deepest questions you have ever had about life: your very existence, your purpose.

Can science provide you with the answers?

In the Minds On section, you were prompted to make an initial assessment as to whether Science could adequately answer some of the fundamental philosophical questions. And while Science as a discipline, in itself, is more empirical in its methods,  can you see how the Philosophy of Science - which deals with the logic derived through science and the implications of its findings - could provide you with the answers that you seek?