Philosophy, Rear-View Mirror of Science

 

 

 

 

 

Philosophy, Rear-View Mirror of Science

Vicky L. Oldham, December 15, 2021

 

Philosophy, Rear-View Mirror of Science

Can philosophy help science forge new discoveries? Where can philosophy best overlap with other fields like science to enhance awareness and improve outcomes?  The bold method of questioning made famous by Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher renowned for his ability to quickly reduce a problem (and the student with which he debated) to a manageable framework, is much like the first stage of inquiry in the modern scientific method.  Despite Socrates' skill at posing problems and suggesting solutions, following his death in 399 BC, over a thousand years of stagnation delayed human progress in science.  Not until the development of the scientific method (roughly beginning with Galileo in the 16th century) did discovery and invention take off at an unprecedented pace, as evidenced by the current state of our technological society (Williams, n.d.).  Once the realization that a method to achieve reproducible, tangible results from experiments held the key to progress in science, there was no going back.  An analogy might be a wagon plodding down a dirt road—for centuries.  Suddenly, due to an unprecedented revolution in thought, the wagon morphs into a gas-powered car and speeds down a busy, paved multilane highway. 

If the scientific method has led to countless new insights, how can philosophical concepts continue to have relevancy to science?  Philosophy may stimulate ideas and spark imagination, but perhaps its best application to science is its capacity for reflection.  If modern science is like the car forging ahead, then philosophy could serve as the invaluable rearview mirror, helping to assess problems, devise adjustments, and find the best route.  Philosophy may help guide the scientific effort to find untraveled lanes, but it's still hard to imagine it as a leading tool.  Science provides ways for scientists to agree and independently reproduce and confirm results through experiments.  However, philosophy is characterized by ongoing debates and lacks a concrete way to achieve consensus (other than by crossing over to the scientific method).

Philosophy often begins with a question, but not every question is deemed worthy as a valid hypothesis, the first stage in the scientific method.  A hypothesis is only valuable if it lends itself to testing through controlled experiments.  The results, when carried out by others, must match.  A video by Khan Academy (2016) explains the difference between a good and bad hypothesis.  For example, the question of why saltwater freezes at a lower temperature than freshwater is a reasonable hypothesis because controlled experiments can determine the answer.  However, a question about a fairy performing magic on the pond to freeze it faster" cannot be tested because it depends on the fairy, which is not something one can observe (Khan Academy, 2016, 3:30).  For over 1000 years, philosophers held firm assumptions about reality, some that incorporated the equivalent of the fairy worldview.  Many ideas thought to be true were either untested or lacked tools for testing.  Unfortunately, these views became the norms promoted by "natural philosophers" for centuries.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle based many of his conclusions on untested deductions.  For example, Aristotle thought it made sense for two balls of different masses to fall to the ground at different times, concluding this as fact.  This mistaken idea remained in place until the Renaissance, when Galileo and Newton finally disproved it through demonstration and mathematical proofs.

According to an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Why Science Needs Philosophy," the authors propose that philosophy may significantly contribute to the process of scientific discovery.  It begins with a quote from a letter written by Albert Einstein.  Einstein believed that knowledge of history and philosophy helps one avoid the trappings of status quo thinking.  He writes, "This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth" (Laplane et al., 2019, p. 3948).  Einstein's assertion may be correct, but it is often the exceptional individual open to philosophical speculation who benefits most.  Without question, a background in history and philosophy broadens one's capacity for creative problem solving and introspection.

Does Science Need Philosophy? Or, Does Philosophy Need Science?

The article "Why Science Needs Philosophy" lists four specific ways philosophy can help science: "(1) clarification of scientific concepts, (2) the critical assessment of scientific assumptions or methods, (3) the formulation of new concepts or theories, and (4) the fostering of dialogue between scientific fields" (Laplane et al., 2019, p. 3949).  The clarification of concepts is shown by the study of stem cells, in which philosophical thought uniquely examines relational characteristics.  First, stem cell properties alone are investigated; then, attention shifts to studying the relationship between stem cells and the microenvironment.  Relational properties affecting the stem cell's environment (such as temperature) are considered.  Finally, the influence of the surrounding stem or other cells is noted. 

Although philosophy richly provides these relational concepts to further stem cell research, it is also true that opportunities for investigating interactions between biological systems, from the cell and its microenvironment to the macro environment, are already available to scientists using the scientific method.  Scientific researchers are often (painfully) aware of these relationships.  Still, they are limited to a particular focus due to the rigors imposed by their study and the logistical constraints of time and budget—practical considerations.  Also, scientists are obliged to follow rigorous protocol.  To achieve valid results or proof, the outcome of experiments must be reproducible by others using the same tools and methods. The "Sagan Standard" made famous by the late astronomer Carl Sagan emphasized this point. The 12th episode of Sagan's 1980s series, Cosmos, famously states, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Jackson, n.d., para. 13).  Sagan reacted to the widespread public belief by many that UFOs—unidentified flying objects—were spacecraft piloted by aliens from outer space.  While Sagan believed galaxies are abundant with countless civilizations replete with intelligent life, no shared evidence has ever confirmed their existence scientifically.

Catalyst for New Concepts

Of all the benefits philosophy may offer to science and other fields, conceptualization and development of new theories stand out.  From philosophical exploration in art and literature to the themes conjured from the minds of science fiction writers, unconventional ideas may prompt previously unfathomed forays into scientific investigation.  After all, imagination and creativity are considered essential components of new inventions.  This realization has led many leaders in education to adopt the STEAM pedagogy to replace STEM, where STEAM is the acronym for "science, technology, engineering, ART, and math" (Marr, 2020).  Adding art to the STEM curriculum is anticipated to boost creativity and innovation significantly.  Creative thinking in STEM disciplines could be essential to Americans' future by maintaining a competitive edge in science and technology.

Historical Impediment to Scientific Progress

Although philosophy may prove pivotal by inspiring new concepts, its propensity to become dogma if unchallenged warns of a well-documented downside.  For example, beliefs about the heavens stemming from the time of Aristotle and Ptolemy became entrenched for over 1000 years, preventing humans from understanding the true nature of Earth's place in the solar system. The idea that the sun revolved around the Earth became firmly incorporated into Roman Catholic Church doctrine—and considered heresy punishable by the Inquisition if questioned.  It was Galileo's development of the telescope and subsequent observations that confirmed the sun-centered Copernican view as correct, although his insistence on the integrity of his findings condemned him to house arrest for the remainder of his life.  New tools like the telescope provided revolutionary information to astronomy and challenged prevailing philosophical thought.  Galileo appealed to an enthusiastic group of skywatchers who attended his lectures on telescopes, and they, in turn, built their own telescopes, confirming his findings. It's hard to imagine moving backward once critical mass is attained with irrefutable knowledge.

One may suppose that the 21st century, with all its enlightenment and technological advancement, is immune from the threat of false assumptions that eventually find acceptance.  Although proof is the ideal way to confirm new science, scientists are sometimes guilty of concluding facts before proofs exist, often due to inadequate investigatory tools.  In one example, leading anthropologists insisted for years that the probability of Neanderthals interbreeding with modern humans was, essentially, "zero."  Anthropologist Erik Trinkhaus long challenged this view based on other clues, but the prevailing hierarchy rejected his appeals.  It was not until 2010, after quantum refinements in DNA analysis, did incontrovertible proof surface confirming Neanderthal interbred with modern humans (Thanfor, 2010).  Finally, anthropologists conceded to the facts because they had no other option (and Trinkhaus was vindicated).  Although science may be as subject to stubborn beliefs as philosophy, at least it adheres to the rules of the scientific method and the recognition of proof by evidence.

Philosophy: To Agree or Not to Agree?

A significant controversy about philosophy's value to science is its failure to agree on the nature of reality and existence (TEDx Talks, 2016).  A good example is found by comparing the views of reductionists with those of holists (Brigandt & Love, 2017).  Reductionism refers to the idea that the smaller parts of a system reflect and inform on its larger components.  It is believed that understanding the nature of the greater is accessible by analyzing the properties of the smaller.  Conversely, reductionism's counter-argument, holism, says that the individual parts of a system cannot tell us anything about the whole, and that whole is greater than the sum of its parts (Szóstek, 2018).  How can these diametrical philosophical views peacefully coexist?  Philosophy easily accommodates many contradictory ideas, but science cannot tolerate the same degree of uncertainty.  For science, there can be only one reality.  Philosophy on the other hand, overlaps with other fields of study and provides different perspectives and angles from which to consider a problem.

Conclusion

While it is undeniable that science developed from philosophy and its conceptualization inspires new ideas leading to discovery, philosophy's amorphous character could also hinder a scientist from pursuing a straightforward goal.  Janet D. Stemwedel, Associate Professor of Philosophy at San José State University, explains that having to provide "a philosophical account of or a justification for that methodology deeper than 'this is what we do and it works pretty well for the problems we want to solve' may render that methodology strange-looking, and hard to keep using" (Stemwedel, 2014, para. 10).  Other critics contend that "philosophy is a discipline looking for a place to land" and view its teaching as a purely academic endeavor (Ernster, 2021).  However, if considered in the proper context, philosophy still contributes significant value to science.  Using the analogy of the car speeding toward its destination, perhaps it is not so much the car (science) that transforms the world but the brilliance of the individual driver (the scientist) who promises to change everything.  In that case, the rearview mirror (philosophical reflection) provides scientists with the different perspectives needed to do extraordinary things.

 

 

 

References

Brigandt, I. & Love, A. (2017). Reductionism in Biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/  

Ernster, T. (2021). Conversation about philosophy [personal communication]. arizernie@aol.com.

Jackson, G. (n.d.). The ‘Sagan standard’ — an essential tool for better thinking. The Aperion Blog. https://theapeiron.co.uk/the-sagan-standard-an-essential-tool-for-better-thinking-d745462972ec

Khan Academy (2016, March 15). The scientific method. YouTube. https://youtu.be/N6IAzlugWw0

Laplane, Mantovani, P., Adolphs, R., Chang, H., Mantovani, A., McFall-Ngai, M., Rovelli, C., Sober, E., & Pradeu, T. (2019). Why science needs philosophy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 116(10), 3948–. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900357116

Marr, B. (2020, January 15). We need STEAM, not STEM education, to prepare our kids for the 4th industrial revolution. Forbes Magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2020/01/15/we-need-steam-not-stem-education-to-prepare-our-kids-for-the-4th-industrial-revolution/#2475300055fb

Stemwedel, J.D. (2014, April 7). What is philosophy of science (and should scientists care)? Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/what-is-philosophy-of-science-and-should-scientists-care/

Szóstek, A. (2018, July 16). Are you a reductionist or a holist in your design approach? Medium.com. https://medium.com/nyc-design/are-you-a-reductionist-or-a-holist-in-your-design-approach-d0d829967e38

TEDx Talks (2016, March 22). The Brains Behind Morality | Patricia Churchland | TEDxNorrköping. YouTube. https://youtu.be/LJ7szK1Rz4w

Thanfor, K. (2010, May 7). Neanderthals, humans interbred—first solid DNA evidence. National Geographic. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene

Williams, L.P. (n.d.). History of science. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/history-of-science