Philosophy and Science are Siblings

Each illuminates the other and this is as it has always been.

I recently spent precious time arguing in an email group. I don’t want that time wasted, so here is the result. I have great respect for my interlocutors.

Philosophy is the primary source of novelty, because there, theoria reigns. 

Philosophy reaches out to discover possibility. It's creative. It's beautiful. Scientists cannot do without it. But not every philosophical theory is true, pragmatic, or even beautiful. Episteme requires belief formation, and belief formation sometimes requires observation—a process formalized as a method during the Enlightenment.

This formalization was good, but not without cost.

Science formalization caused a decoupling of the linkage between Scientia and Philosophia. This cleaving also caused the Rationalists and Empiricists to dig in their heels, which they should never have done. Such is not to argue that philosophy and science should always dance. We would all find that incredibly boring, and there are some domains where these two cannot dance.

One day, the Empiricist and the Rationalist found each other at the Inn, drunk and belligerent. The Empiricist cried: “There is only that which we observe, and we are locked within our observations.” The Rationalist cried: “Reason is the architecture of abstraction, and we are free to reveal the world’s design.” They met with their pistols on the dueling field and took ten steps before turning to fire.

Each one’s bullet struck the other, and both were dead. —from “The Lunar Eclipse”

For example, scientists might explain how or why we evolved certain moral sentiments. They might also be able to indicate the destructive consequences of holding certain beliefs in certain contexts, even if those beliefs are intuitive. But scientists can't tell us what is right, much less the ontological status of ethical claims. 

There are also domains in which either discipline is just way ahead of the game.

Millenia-old philosophical theories of an atomic universe (Leucippus-Democritus) inspired investigations into the smallest constituents of energy and matter. Centuries-old philosophical theories of perception inspired much of cognitive science. But scientific and technological advances have also inspired all manner of philosophical theories. For example, neuroscience demonstrates an intimate connection between neural states and subjective properties. Couple that with nanotech, and you arrive at myriad thought experiments about microphysical twins, zombies, and consciousness. Examples abound.

False Theories

Just as the function of philosophy is to explore a greater possibility space, the function of science often is to winnow possibilities. Science, after all, has killed many a philosophical theory, so some science can help disqualify bullshit philosophy. So science can illuminate philosophy, and philosophy can illuminate science.

The Israelites once believed God would protect them if they washed their hands before eating. You might call this a theory. Crude philosophy, but still philosophy. This became a sacred rite, but it was built on a theory. It took a long time before Semmelweis came along with his crazy observations of dying women to remind doctors to wash their hands, and though Semmelweis died in ignominy, he was right. He opened the door to germ theory, which is now germ science. The Israelites had been right that they were spared because they washed their hands. But they were right for the wrong reasons. Science illuminated theory.

Other examples show that the philosophy was wrong for the wrong reasons. Such include:

• Tabula Rasa theory

• Lamarckism

• Marxism (in great measure)

• Strict determinism

Of course, the reverse is also true.

Einstein's theories began as philosophical insights, and despite many good verifying observations, they came to upend Newtonian mechanics. We now know Newton's limits because science and philosophy engaged in fruitful interplay.

Pragmaticism

C.S. Pierce was obsessed with this interplay, and it rooted his pragmaticism:

1. The "pragmatic maxim" was that the meaning of any concept or assertion lies in its observable, practical effects and consequences.

2. Our knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision in light of new evidence. He emphasized the refinement of hypotheses through experimentation and observation, or fallibilism, and

3. He thought the pursuit of truth was a communal effort where ideas and hypotheses are tested and corrected within a community of inquirers.

Philosophy plays with and considers possibilities in novelty. The sibling scientia is near, always near, ready to dance, observe, and check where possible.

Of course, the etymology of science is to observe and, further back, to incise, as in to distinguish. If we are, in any sense, evolved Bayesians, we have to operate as humans in the back-and-forth between observation and theory—as observers/distinguishers and speculators/theorizers. If we weren't scientists all along, we would never have survived. 

Kant was onto something when he said: "concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind." The vacillating tandem between Theoria and Scientia is enormously fruitful and, far from creating the monsters of the twentieth century, might have muted their aspirations. Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions rips into philosophers who gave us the “Unconstrained Vision,” where scientism and rationalism run amok in political philosophy.

Too much science in philosophy or practical affairs leads to scientism. Too many grand rationalistic plans with too little local science can lead to potentially destructive abstractions that could never be implemented. (I love Michael Oakeshott's work in this regard because he is the finest intellectual conservative.) 

Magister Ludi

If all philosophy gets to be is a set of subjective conceptual sky castles, then we're in trouble. Philosophers without scientists become Magister Ludi types who disappear from the world. There is a mature discipline called the Philosophy of Science. I coined the term “The Science of Philosophy” the other day to be playful, but I’m also serious. The absence of a label or name does not equate to the absence of existence. The pre-moderns used to call science "Natural Philosophy," and no wonder. We use empirical methods to evaluate philosophical claims all the time.

Shit happens. Observers happen. Shit happens to observers. Observers observe shit (proto-science). Observers filter (Bayesian science). Observers theorize (philosophy). Go back to Shit happens to observers and repeat.

I am comfortable with being a coherence theorist of truth and knowledge, a la Donald Davidson. This means that humans operate within a web of beliefs, and we use language more or less to interpret the utterances of others to access their web of beliefs. Part of my beliefs are observational claims, many of which are scientific, some philosophical, and a few of which are perhaps none of the above. I use language to expand my web and approach correspondence through coherence. 

I don't like to ascribe motivations, but I would prompt anyone who doesn't want science sniffing around his philosophy to ask himself whether he is afraid. Not all of the philosopher’s work will be testable by scientific methods, even in principle, much less capable of being illuminated. But if the intellectual firewall is merely for security, that is, to protect his theory and his ego, then he is just sucking his thumb, avoiding critique or observational checks.

I submit that keeping one's theoretical abstractions away from the Web of Belief means shunning a sibling.

If we really wanted to stir the pot, we would add faith and fiction to the mix. Do your best in the comments.