If you take an introduction to philosophy class in college, the first issue they address is usually "What is philosophy?" This is an important question if you're interested in learning about philosophy, but it's also an important question if you're interested in other fields of study, like science, history, literature, etc. I've heard a lot of people argue about whether, for example, the multiverse is science or philosophy. When these arguments happen, it always comes down to what is meant by "science" and "philosophy."
The first thing I remember my intro to philosophy teacher saying was that philosophy was the love of wisdom. This defintion was based on the etymology of the word. "Philo" comes from the Greek word for love or friendliness toward. "Sophia" comes from the Greek word for wisdom. As a side note, I called my blog and my youtube channel PhiloChristos because I love Christ and I am a friend of Christ. I'm a Christian. Anywho, the etymology of a word is not the best way to determine its meaning because the meaning of words changes over time. The meaning of a word depends on how that word is used, and people change how they use words over time.
Let me first say what I wish was the meaning of philosophy. I wish philosophy was the use of reason to arrive at truths. The reason I don't think that's the best definition of philosophy, even though I wish that were the meaning, is because there's a whole field of philosophy and several schools of thought that deny even the existence of objective truth. They also deny the usual rules of logical inference. Philosophy, according to common use, appears to be broader than I would like it to be. Post modernism, continental philosophy, and much of eastern philosophy would not agree with my preferred definition of philosophy since they often reject reason, logic, and truth, but still publish in academic philosophical journals.
Alvin Plantinga gave a definition in one of his books (God, Freedom, and Evil if memory serves me right) that was pretty broad but mostly accurate. He said philosophy was just thinking really hard about stuff. That captures both my preferred definition as well as whatever post-moderninsts and eastern philosophers seem to think philosophy is. I'm afraid his definition might be too broad, though. I've spent a lot of time thinking really hard about conversations I had or decisions I made and what I wish I had said or done instead, but I wouldn't consider that philosophy.
Yesterday, somebody on YouTube commented that all philosophy is speculation. That comment is what gave rise to this post. I don't think that's true at all. When it comes to epistemology, which is undoubtedly the domaine of philosophy, there is a distinction between what we can know with certainty and what we can know with less than certainty. There are at least some things we can know with certainty. I know I exist, I know that 2+2=4, and I know that if two statements explicitly contradict each other, they can't both be true. I know these things with certainty. When I think about these things and what justifies my knowledge, I am engaged in philosophy. The question of whether the law of non-contradiction is true is a philosophical question with an answer we can be absolutely certain about. So philosophy can give us certainty, at least in some cases, which means not all philosophy is mere speculation.
In fact, it seems to me that philosophy is the only field of inquiry that can give us certainty. Science can't give us absolute certainty because it depends on observations, and it's at least possible that none of our perceptions correspond to an external world. But whether the external world exists or not, I am still certain of my own existence and of the law of non-contradiction. The person who made that youtube comment was so wrong, he was almost right again.
So what is philosophy? That's a hard question to answer. Even science used to fall under the broader category of philosophy. It was called "natural philosophy." We now consider science to be distinct from philosophy, which means our definition of philosophy has changed. I think it used to be the broadest way of referring to any field of inquiry where you're just trying to figure out what reality is like, which is why science was considered a branch of philosophy. Philosophers still use the findings of science, though. William Lane Craig often says that science gives us premises that are used in philosophical arguments with theological implications. Philosophers of time point to relativity to argue for what they think time is. Philosophers are happy to admit that they use science in their arguments.
Science uses philosophy, but for some reason, scientists are very reluctant to admit that they are using philosophy. However, science uses all the tools of reasoning that philosophers use. Science is a set of methods for discovering truths about the physical world. Where does science get the methods from? They can't get the methods from science or that would be circular reasoning. The methods come from philosophy. All the tools of reasoning that science uses come from philosophy. Science couldn't even get off the ground if not for philosophy. Without philosophy, one could not reason inductively or deductively, and science does both. Without philosophy, one could not draw any conclusions about the physical world merely by making observations, and that is the primary function of science.
Without philosophy, one could not design an experiment since it is philosophy that gives you the syllogism necessary to make an experiment relevant. Usually, experiments are designed in such a way as to test a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess about what the world is like. A hypothesis is testable if it allows you to make a prediction. Here is how the reasoning would work if you were designing an experiment to test a hypothesis:
1. If such and such hypothesis is true, then we should expect such and such to happen under such and such circumstances. <--This is the prediction.
2. Such and such did not happen under such and such circumstances. <--This is the result of the experiment.
3. Therefore, such and such theory is not true. <--We have falsified the hypothesis.
This reasoning, which science uses, is called modus tollens in philosophy. How do we know the reasoning is valid? Well, it isn't science that tells us that. It's the discipline of philosophy that tells us that. So philosophy underlies science, and it would be impossible to do science without philosophy.
And that's just one example. Many more could be given. I gave a deductive example, but here's an inductive example. Science also uses repeatability. The more repeatable an experiment is, the more sure we can be of the conclusion. Induction is when you extrapolate from specific examples to general conclusions. For example, if every time you heat water to 212ºF, it begins to boil, then you can draw the conclusion that 212ºF is the boiling point of water. That means if you heat water to 212ºF in the future, you can expect the same thing to happen. It will even happen if you're not watching. Extrapolations like this allow you to form generalizations which you can then use to predict what will happen in the future under similar circumstances. This principle has been stated in different ways:
- The future will resemble the past.
- Nature behaves the same way when we are not looking as it does when we are looking.
- What happens in the lab can tell us what happens in nature.
David Hume famously pointed out that the principle of induction itself cannot be demonstrated to be true since any experiment you could conjure up in an effort to prove the principle of induction would have to assume the truth of the principle in order to be valid. You couldn't say, "We know the principle of induction is true because every time we've used it in the past, it has yielded reliable results" because that would be circular reasoning. Since you can't use science to justify the principle of induction, where do we get the principle? We get it from philosophy. Philosophy, then, underlies science, and one cannot do science without certain philosophical presuppositions, like induction, logic, and the reliability of our sensory perceptions which are what enable us to make observations.
What is philosophy, then? I don't know for sure, but I usually recognize it when I see it. I do think that, strictly speaking, whenever you are doing science, you are doing philosophy, but at the same time, I understand what people mean when they distinguish science and philosophy. Whenever they are distinguished, science is always what we are able to conclude through making observations, taking measurements, etc. Philosophy, by contrast, is just whatever we are able to conclude through thinking and reasoning without necessarily having to go out into the world and make observations. I think that's what people mean when they make the distinction, but if you really wanted to be careful, you'd have to recognize that the distinction is not tidy. Science depends on philosophy, and philosophers often use the findings of science as a basis for what they are thinking about.
It may be that "philosophy" is just one of those words that doesn't have a precise definition. Since I've left the definition of philosophy kind of open-ended without nailing down a definition, how would you define philosophy, and how would you distinguish it from science? Or would you?
No comments:
Post a Comment