- #31
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,734
- 11,948
I think the term philosophy is often too poorly defined for a general discussion.
I think of philosophy's relationship with science in several different ways, which may be better discussed independently.
One is ethics. Bioethics has already been mentioned.
At one level, this is something that has to be considered for practical reasons when writing a proposal or working out animal care.
This has been bureaucratized and is largely dealt with by departments/campus organizations in support of their researchers. It is a real world issue with right and wrong answers for biological researchers.
This can also include considering research results wrt philosophical questions concerning legitimate scientific practice: Do Fish Feel Pain (there is a fair sized literature that affect animal care choices).
In the medical field, triaging is an impactful and real world application of ethics (to optimize positive results).
Another application of philosophy seems to involve more solid issues like metaphysics and epistemology that seem closer to some of the subjects of physics (and therefore other sciences).
In this area, the distinction between using data to decide an issue vs. other means of argumentation does seem to me to divide philosophy from science.
Philosophy can present well parsed questions or analyses of some outstanding issue.
Getting the information to decide an issue, moves understanding forward to the next arising issue.
In theory, they could work hand in hand (philosophers developing questions, scientists interrogating the real world), but it not all philosophers seem to keep up with the rapidly moving modern interpretation of the natural world.
There is also a "Philosophy" of how research in a particular field should be conducted.
This might be considered practical guidelines, but may touch on real philosophical questions.
"How is Psychology to be conducted?" is a good example.
The question, "What can be fruitfully addressed?" lead a part of psychology (a more biological/experimental part) to focus on Skinner type behavoralism and operant conditioning. This was productive in that it produced results (which later became useful in chasing down the neural substrates of behavior), but not very illuminating of the more subtle drivers of behavior, nor of any inner mind issues.
Other parts of psychology did not follow this philosohy and went their own way.
Another psychological issue would concern conscious phenomena, what to make of them, what is accessible to experiment. This could be relevant to thinking/consciousness or to the much more grounded field of psychophysics (how sensory impressions related to physical stimuli).
"Shut-up and calculate" might be another philosophical approach to what should be done in a field.
I think of philosophy's relationship with science in several different ways, which may be better discussed independently.
One is ethics. Bioethics has already been mentioned.
At one level, this is something that has to be considered for practical reasons when writing a proposal or working out animal care.
This has been bureaucratized and is largely dealt with by departments/campus organizations in support of their researchers. It is a real world issue with right and wrong answers for biological researchers.
This can also include considering research results wrt philosophical questions concerning legitimate scientific practice: Do Fish Feel Pain (there is a fair sized literature that affect animal care choices).
In the medical field, triaging is an impactful and real world application of ethics (to optimize positive results).
Another application of philosophy seems to involve more solid issues like metaphysics and epistemology that seem closer to some of the subjects of physics (and therefore other sciences).
In this area, the distinction between using data to decide an issue vs. other means of argumentation does seem to me to divide philosophy from science.
Philosophy can present well parsed questions or analyses of some outstanding issue.
Getting the information to decide an issue, moves understanding forward to the next arising issue.
In theory, they could work hand in hand (philosophers developing questions, scientists interrogating the real world), but it not all philosophers seem to keep up with the rapidly moving modern interpretation of the natural world.
There is also a "Philosophy" of how research in a particular field should be conducted.
This might be considered practical guidelines, but may touch on real philosophical questions.
"How is Psychology to be conducted?" is a good example.
The question, "What can be fruitfully addressed?" lead a part of psychology (a more biological/experimental part) to focus on Skinner type behavoralism and operant conditioning. This was productive in that it produced results (which later became useful in chasing down the neural substrates of behavior), but not very illuminating of the more subtle drivers of behavior, nor of any inner mind issues.
Other parts of psychology did not follow this philosohy and went their own way.
Another psychological issue would concern conscious phenomena, what to make of them, what is accessible to experiment. This could be relevant to thinking/consciousness or to the much more grounded field of psychophysics (how sensory impressions related to physical stimuli).
"Shut-up and calculate" might be another philosophical approach to what should be done in a field.