Science and Philosophy

Science and Philosophy

Many scientists have got it into their head that the purpose of philosophy is to help them with their science. They then complain that it isn’t much help, if any. The complaint would be reasonable if their assumption were correct. But it isn’t. Philosophy is a different subject entirely. Their attitude is like philosophers thinking that the aim of science is to help them with their philosophical problems. These scientists are like lawyers who think the job of philosophers is to help them with their legal cases, or farmers who think philosophers should be helping with the farming. The idea seems to be that philosophy used to be an adjunct of religion, but science took over from religion, so philosophers should switch their interests accordingly. Or else they just think science is the only thing worth knowing (who taught them that?). They appear to believe they are the gentlemen and philosophers their manservants (“handmaidens”). Jeeves to Wooster, as it were, but with a less spectacular Jeeves. The fact is that the philosophical Jeeves is off doing his own thing, far removed from Bertie’s scientific endeavors. The two subjects are miles apart. Of course, it is good to know a wide range of things—philosophers should know some science and scientists should know some philosophy, just to be well-educated. In my experience the educational lack is greater on the science side, since science is taught in schools and philosophy isn’t. I know many philosophers who are quite good scientists, but virtually no scientists who are even halfway decent philosophers. I myself was trained as a scientist (psychology) initially, and the scientists I knew were generally completely ignorant of philosophy and had no interest in it. If a philosopher chooses to do philosophy of science, he isn’t trying to do science in some amateurish fashion; he is doing philosophy. How philosophy could help one design experiments beats me, let alone analyze their results. Science is one thing, philosophy quite another. In my brain, psychology and philosophy occupy different compartments, rather as tennis and music do. The purpose of philosophy is not to help scientists think more clearly, or some such worthy (and dreary) aim; it is to solve philosophical problems—or at least understand them better. I am not today trying to explain what philosophical problems are, or how to set about solving them; I am simply asserting that philosophy is not the manservant of science. Nor has it ever been since the time of Plato. Philosophy is not concerned with finding out the center of the universe or how animals evolved or what matter is made of—or helping scientists find out those things (how?); it has its own subject-matter and methods. If a scientist wants to find out what these are, he or she could have a look at the curriculum of a typical philosophy degree—or even more onerous, take a philosophy course. It’s not that hard.