Can philosophy help to keep science honest? Image by Anita Peppers
Philosophy is not a single subject.
Philosophers address an infinite number of issues and try to make sense and order of them. For example: ethics, morals, human choices, human belief systems, world politics including justice and law, the complexities of language and meaning and the nature of beauty.
All of this enables us to decide how we should live, what is important to us and why we behave as we do.
According to some scientists, that is not enough.
“What happens when philosophers talk about philosophy?” asks Anja Steinbauer in her editorial for Philosophy Now.
“It sounds as though they might be running round in circles like headless chickens. Though it can’t be denied this occasionally happens, on the whole a lot more is at stake here. So much hinges on this discussion because of the unique nature of philosophy as an intellectual discipline and attitude.”
An intellectual discipline that is currently under attack from scientists, convinced that their own discipline is the only real source of all knowledge, and that truth must be based on hard, empirical evidence before being absorbed into the mainstream.
Is this fair? More importantly, is it helpful?
Stephen Hawking says Philosophy is Dead
According to physicist Stephen Hawking, when addressing Google’s 2011 Zeitgeist Conference in Hertfordshire, philosophy fails to keep up with science.
In his article, “Philosophy is Dead,” in The Telegraph, Matt Warman explains Hawking’s concern,
“[F]undamental questions about the nature of the universe could not be resolved without hard data such as that currently being derived from the Large Hadron Collider and space research.”
Professor Hawking acknowledges that his comments apply particularly to physics.
However, physics was once the domain of philosophers whose objective was to answer humanity’s most important questions. Such questions as:
“Why are we here?”
“What is the meaning of life?”
“Does life continue after death?”
Warman quotes Hawking: “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”
This is a fine metaphor to describe an admirable search for what is true. Can science do it alone? Does philosophy have an important part to play as the exciting quest continues, leading us to the truth about the universe and the apparently brief and insignificant part we play in its development?
If philosophy is finding it tough keeping up with physics and cosmology, what about its other vital areas of expertise, for example, ethics, morals, justice and law?
What is Right and What is Wrong?
Is the discussion of morality and ethics the exclusive property of philosophy, or can science provide the answers to what is right and what is wrong?
Michael Shermer argues his point in his article “A Moral Starting Point: How Science can Inform Ethics,” in Scientific American. Shermer’s theory is based on the idea that the flourishing of human life has always depended upon natural selection.
Throughout history, abuse, torture, war, slavery and theft have diminished human life, but natural selection actually targets the individual. It is the individual who feels the pain or the pleasure, and so the aim of ethics is to facilitate this human flourishing. This includes survival and reproduction of individual beings.
The American philosopher, John Rawls, (1921-2002) is one of the most influential thinkers since WWII. He argued for the rights of individuals taking precedence over the common good. In the chapter “John Rawls” in 100 Great Thinkers, Jeremy Harwood says:
“Rawls rescued philosophy from its preoccupation with dry-as-dust questions of logic, linguistics and the philosophy of science, focusing it again firmly on the fundamentals of ethics, social justice and the limits of freedom and responsibility.”
The statement about dry-as-dust areas of philosophy might seem a little harsh, but the importance of ethical issues and the protection of the individual contradicts utilitarian values. Utilitarianism is a theory that upholds the idea of the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Rawls and Shermer both uphold the rights of the individual over those of the group. Image by Milza.
We may ask whether science can deliver on issues concerning the rights of the individual?
Deriving Ethics from Facts is Dangerous
In her article, “Science and Philosophy: A Beautiful Friendship,” in Philosophy Now, Amy Cools takes issue with Michael Shermer and the scientists.
For support, she uses the important philosophical theory of David Hume on the impossibility of inferring an “ought” from an “is.”
“How can we go about deciding that one fact – one “is” – is more important than another fact when determining what ought to be done?” she asks. She cites a poignant example, that of eugenics. Enthusiasts were keen to apply the eugenics theory to everything:
Nature selects for and also against individual organisms, so these thinkers decided that it was possible to apply this theory to human beings as well. According to Cools,
“Thus, from the late Nineteenth Century to the middle of the Twentieth, many scientists thought that the human species should be “perfected” through the judicious selection of traits to pass on to future generations…they thought they should select against those individuals possessed of supposedly “undesirable” quality – “selection” in this case meaning sterilizing or killing.”
This is an example that is in direct opposition to the theory of the supremacy of the individual, because it works against the individual. It is a classic case of a deeply destructive ideology gaining supremacy. There are many instances where a far better and more compassionate outcome for humanity could be achieved by science and philosophy working together.
A fact observed, scientific or otherwise, is not sufficient to determine what would be the best thing to do, and we ignore the contribution of philosophy at our peril. There are, always, many facts and many variables to consider, and often they dictate opposite courses of action. By what criteria can we, as thinking and compassionate human beings, decide that another person’s life is not worth living?
We could discriminate, based on scientific theory, but if we are philosophers, we don’t have to do that. We can choose how we will respond according to our humanity.
As human beings, we have evolved to sympathise and empathise with others, and to help them when we can. Our co-operation as individuals enables us to protect those weaker than ourselves and to try to alleviate suffering whenever possible.
Amy Cools summarises as follows: “It’s also a fact that this set of cooperative instincts that compels us to help the “unfit” survive, drives us to help each other live happier, healthier, wealthier and therefore in the long run “fitter” lives, as individuals and as members of society.”
A Two-Way Dependence Between the Individual and the Group
Cools does not dismiss the importance of the group, since we need society for promoting education, disseminating food, clothing, equipment and medicine. We would not get far in life by ourselves.
“Therefore people flourish when individuals’ efforts are promoted and when they’re not allowed to infringe too much on the interests of the group… The incredible diversity of individuals should be encouraged and protected because they make our species among the most adaptable and therefore the most resilient on the earth.”
In Amy Cools’ view, self-interested individuals cannot be allowed to pursue their goals to the detriment of the group or of society. We need balance, and to consider all the common characteristics within a group that help both that group and its individual members to flourish. She quotes from Britain’s former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, who said:
“Generally great harm comes from the attempt to separate “individuals” and “society” into competing camps, or from acting on the belief that society doesn’t exist.”
Can you see the analogy here? Fields of interest cannot be separated without harm coming to one or the other. That is why science still needs philosophy and vice versa.
Science and Philosophy – A Partnership, not a Competition
Science owes a great deal to philosophy from its very beginning, and continues to do so to this day. As Cools continues:
“At every step of the way, from the application of the rules of logic, to the justification of why we should value or emphasize one set of facts over another in any specific application, the formulation of scientific theories relies heavily on philosophy. In fact, science was originally a branch of philosophy – natural philosophy – until that branch of inquiry became so large it specialized and branched off, then branched again into physics, biology, chemistry and so forth: we could say that science was grafted out of philosophy.”
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, the love of knowledge, and seeks answers to challenging questions. While science is engaged in gathering essential data and facts, philosophers are anxious to figure out how we can use them to their best advantage. Philosophers want to figure out whether there are any elements of the theory that may not work to humanity’s advantage, as happened in the distressing aftermath of the discovery of eugenics.
In the end, most committed thinkers want a better world where humans and other species can flourish.
In her article, All or Nothing, Anja Steinbauer quotes Wittgenstein:
“A man will be imprisoned in a room with a door that’s unlocked and opens inwards, as long as it does not occur to him to pull rather than push it.”
Go on, says Steinbauer, “Pull!”
I would add one word to that – “Together.”
In reality, knowledge is monolithic. No matter what “subject” you study, sooner or later, if you go into it far enough, it starts to spill over into nearly all other fields of human knowledge. I tend to call this bulk, “philosophy”, as the term was used historically. But then at times “history” seems just as good since everything we study, even our thoughts and actions from 5 seconds ago, is history. Most subjects tend to be taught as they unfolded historically, Thus, when studying advanced calculus, you are just getting into the 16th and 17th centuries of math – that leaves a long way to go!
Philosophy is the effort to prevent the sacrifice of humans. The more you know, the less likely it is that you will be tossing virgins into volcanoes, for example. And there needs to be a higher perspective than that given by science. Even Einstein realized that. Current trust in science makes people less likely to address problems since they expect they will “be solved someday by scientists”. That is simply not true – no amount of lab experimentation will solve problems of morals or identity, as examples. And science, like all else in our world, has definite limits.
As a scientist, I know that people need to keep watch on all areas of knowledge. After all, science is, to some, nothing more than a cancerous tumor on logical positivism. The time may come when surgery is the best option. A non-scientist will need to make that decision.
Philosophy and Science both have their genesis in the same creative impulses viz. a sense of Wonder and a quest for Answers.
Philosophy strives to find answers to the existential queries of a somewhat primitive mind using the tools of observation, contemplation, theorizing and thought experiments to evolve a moralistic value system.
Science on the other hand seeks answers to somewhat less existential queries as well as to more mundane queries of a comparatively more evolved materialistic mind using the tools of observation, contemplation, theorizing and physical experiments to arrive set of more readily usable knowledge base in a more worldly sense.
The real difference between the two lies at the type of queries sought to be answered and intensely personal thought experiments versus universally repeatable physical experiments.
“Scientism” is the belief that the only real truth can be found through science. Ironically, it is a very unscientific belief.
Professor Cox:
Thank you so much for replying to my article, and for your insightful comments. It can be demoralising for people passionate about philosophy to realise how misunderstood its role has become. Once, I was in a group where the science tutor said that the difference between science and philosophy is that science is about truth, evidence and facts, while a philosopher is someone merely “leaning back in an armchair having lofty thoughts.” Philosophy is so much more than that, whether practical or speculative.
Very best wishes
Janet Cameron
You’ll find that the biggest critics among scientists know nothing about philosophy. The greats, like Einsten, Newton, Gődel, and so on, were well-versed in philosophy and that contributed to their creativity and the understanding of their work.
The “angels dancing on pins” discussion is often used by those that know little, even though that originated in a logic exercise for students and was never a serious discussion. A good philosopher is a treasure to all mankind and I won’t sit still if the ignorant criticize something they kniow nothing about. After all, philosophers have tools unavailable to most and useful in all fields of knowledge.
So, Janet, when people criticize, just look at it “philosophically” and try to arrange for their education.
Science measures things, opens things, breaks things and reveals the interactions. It tells us that when we drop a rock onto the ground, it does such and such. Science’s job is strictly limited, and does little to help men ask the questions that science cannot answer. That’s OK; this is its job.
If I want to know, however, for example, what this awareness called consciousness is, I need philosophy. It’s no good telling me that my brain is responsible in this way or that for chemical-electrical interactions which compel me to do this or that. Any schoolchild instinctively knows and understands that consciousness is qualitatively different from that. Philosophy has the job of exploring the moral and metaphysical landscape.
Mr. Hawking has a well-deserved fame. I devoured his Brief History of Time in my twenties and have admired him and his work ever since. Sadly, though, he seems to have a penchant for overstepping. Or perhaps his intelligence in one area has rendered him unable to see much of the intellectual spectrum beyond physics.
As to Mr. Hawking, exactly! He is no doubt a brilliant individual. But no one knows everything, and Hawking has proven many times that about some things he is a dope. Aristotle was brilliant, too, even though we now realize that when he said something that was true, it was more than likely a mistake or a random instance due to his vast output along the lines of the typing monkeys. He is nevertheless a pivotal part of our intellectual history and deserves respect, not for what he said, but for what he aspired towards.