The Need for Philosophy in Science
What do science and philosophy have in common? Are the two mutually exclusive? Especially because philosophy does not necessarily need empirical evidence to thrive and function, the scientific community often write philosophy off as irrelevant. But what can philosophy do for modern science that science cannot do on its own? Come to the first philosophy club of the semester to talk about these questions and more!
Epistemology
Empiricism
Knowledge comes through experience
Cannot prove without experience
Rationalism
Knowledge comes from “figuring things out”; logistically
Descartes
Interpreting an experience has more exact, specific knowledge
Faults in biases and different experiences
Without experience, it is only hypothetical and has less validity
Logical assumptions of vague statements
Having an understanding of key terms
Fundamental understanding before expressing and understanding concepts
Utilization of empiricism and rationalism is situational and/or intertwined
Kantian constructivism- using both to derive meaning and understanding
Not mutually exclusive
Does the world have a beginning?
Must use both, no superiority between the two
Not Earth, the universe
Property of nothing is to come from something
Something cannot come from nothing
Everything has a creation and something before it
Strictly empirical vs. rational concepts- beyond the human experience; assumption that there is one type of knowledge
Empirical
Can’t go back
Senses can be deceived
Rational
Comprehending definitions
Can’t step outside empirical perceptions
The experienced lends to inexperienced
Cannot make conclusions regarding abstract things (morality)
How can science answer these types of questions on its own? (empirical faults)
Limits how we can talk about certain things (must have empirical evidence)
Makes concrete things out of abstract things
Cannot talk about everything because of human limitations of experience
How can philosophy or rationalism answer these types of questions on its own?
Not absolute
Can get stuck
When thinking about one abstract philosophical concept, the limitless intricacies result in unending thought
Potential for “feeling” based thinking over actual rational thought
Myths and logical fallacy- you don’t know what you don’t know (Descartes)
Myths that perpetuate themselves
If we marry the two, a lot of these problems can be solved because they complete each other
Rational faults can be solved with empirical knowledge to confirm concrete ideas
How would science change if we accepted both and used both to acquire knowledge
The phenomenal world- what people experience
The noumenal world- parts of reality that exist beyond human experience but can be understood when applied with human knowledge and empiricism
Bigger than the phenomenal world
Humans can acknowledge the existence of the noumenal world, but do not have access to its knowledge and inner-workings
