streamline

Has philosophy now taken a backseat to science/empiricism? Is science now the powerful race horse pulling -- or, perhaps, dragging along a kicking & screaming -- dilapidated cart that is philosophy? Are philosophers now in the position of having to forever scramble after the latest findings of the scientists, and more importantly, place such findings front and center in any philosophical speculation if it is to warrant any serious consideration?

Though their overall project might have crashed and burned, every time I come across the writings of the Logical Positivists, I cannot but help feel more than a bit of empathy with what I sense as one of the chief motivational thrusts behind their ideas. That is, a disgust with the armchair thinker or so-called metaphysician, whatever their particular collar (Platonist, Idealist, theologian, etc.), the sort who professes to understand and explain the universe simply by thinking really really hard about it. As physicist Taner Edis puts it in his book Ghost in the Universe -- a book I thoroughly enjoyed -- these sorts of thinkers are in essence seeking "something for nothing." It would seem that there is less and less relevance to the philosopher-qua-philosopher, as even fields of inquiry once considered off-limits to science (consciousness, moral behavior, origins) have begun to yield to empirical investigation. Furthermore, I see no reason to think this trend will not only not continue, but won't pick up steam.

So, what of it? Should metaphysics have a fork stuck in it?

freeth1nker

If Exnihilo is reading this, I'm sure he'll have a lot to say on this matter. This is really a continuation of the thread Science and the Limits of Human Knowledge. Anyway, in that thread, I think we've established sufficient reasons to dispell the view that you are currently holding.
So is philosophy dead? Definitely not. As you will see, philosophy-qua-philosophy has a lot to offer in terms of providing cogent intellectual criticisms of science (see the above thread).

The sheer dichotomy you make between thinking and experiencing, i.e. between the Rationalism of philosophy and the empiricism of science is a very common misconception among scientists. Empiricism and the scientific method itself both had their births in philosophy, as the inventions of Aristotle. It is also worth nothing that this dichotomy hadn't existed before Aristotle, the pre-Socratics had a notion of 'praxis' which essentially means the unity of theory and practice.
What you scientists & logical posivitists don't seem to understand is just how much of science in grounded in metaphysical/philosophical presuppositions.

Considering the fact of our physical existence, the consequence of our consciousness and moral behaviour yielding emprical observations is hardly surprising. But science cannot go beyond what is physical. So to say that we can explain the totality of our existence in terms of science is IMO very naive.
Besides, even if science is able to explain the totality of moral behaviour (and that is a big IF), it still falls short of providing us with a set of ethics, i.e. how I should treat other people, or why I should be moral at all. The why questions are inquiries completely beyond the realm of science, as such, science can only answer or attempt to answer the how questions surrounding those inquiries, but never the why's itself.

Science has shown again and again that that previous/out-dated theories are being continually modified if not rejected altogether. What makes you so sure that the science we hold today is any more valid when viewed say three centuries in the future. And if the nature of science is such that theories are always changing (albeit some last longer than others), by what standard can you measure the truth/untruth of a scientific theory?

It seems that the faith you put into science does not fall short of that of the religious dogmatists. As true philosophical skeptics, we should be wary of all sorts of dogmatism.

Pyrrho

The short answer is, yes, metaphysics, as generally practiced, should have a fork stuck in it. This idea goes as far back as David Hume, if not further. But, of course, people continue to believe all sorts of nonsense, no matter what scientific discovery occurs, even by some "scientists" in other fields. So don't expect any sudden changes any time soon.

I should add, however, that metaphysics is not the only branch of philosophy, so the death of metaphysics, if that ever occurred, would not be the death of philosophy.

streamline

That empiricism and the scientific method both had their births in philosophy isn't terribly relevant to the question I was asking. Astronomy had its birth in astrology, but I do not consider this very relevant when deciding in light of today's knowledge if astrology is still worth any serious consideration.

Science being based upon some basic "philosophical" assumptions isn't news to scientists, as far as I have ever read or learned. One can't even walk out the front door, let alone attempt to understand the natural universe, if he/she doesn't first make at least a few "metaphysical" presuppositions regarding reality. However, it is what happens from there that I am inclined to say the scientist shines, and the armchair metaphysician becomes no more an authority than the poet or storyteller.

I believe I have made an error in using the term philosophy, when I mean in particular to question the philosophical enterprise known as metaphysics. I have never thought of science as being able to provide prescriptive 'why' answers. I do, however, think far too many philosophers are far too quick to play the Naturalistic Fallacy card out of some fear or paranoia of science. Empirical research can and often should play a part in informing any sort of why questioning (and answering), including in the ethical realm.

As for explaining the totality of existence, I am not even sure I know what that means, let alone if it is possible. All the same, I can't see how any attempt to explain existence, if not grounded in the scientific method, is any different than blatant make-believe or blind and baseless speculation. What's the first thing someone is going to demand should another person claim to be able to explain the "totality of existence"? Empirical evidence, I imagine. And if the claimant says, well, I thought it up in my study, what's the most likely reply? Can I test this idea somehow? In other words, science. Can this scientific explanation go beyond the "physical"? Again, I am not entirely sure I know what you mean -- what would qualify as non-physical? And what non-scientific means are able to explain such non-physical, er, things?

IMO, this is a bit of a naive, if not also misinformed, understanding of science and scientific theories. What makes me so sure today's science is more valid than past science? First, I wouldn't use "valid" here -- today's science is certainly more advanced. As for why I might dare say today's science is more advanced than the past, and furthermore, why this set of affairs gives me cause to trust that today's science will be tomorrow's less-advanced kind ... surely you don't really need to ask me that, do you? Have you tried to cure any diseases lately with leeches? Have you attempted to play any original Atari cartridges on an X-Box?

Given the minimal presuppositions necessary to even begin a coherent examination of reality, and to share that examination with others, I still would NOT use the word "faith" in describing my endorsement of science. In fact, the methodological approach to reality inherent in science is the polar opposite of that found in the religious dogmatist or metaphysician. ALL presuppositions are subject to review and revision in science -- that is, by definition, science.

freeth1nker

That empiricism and the scientific method both had their births in philosophy isn't terribly relevant to the question I was asking. Astronomy had its birth in astrology, but I do not consider this very relevant when deciding in light of today's knowledge if astrology is still worth any serious consideration.

No, but I was asking you to take a look at their philosophical foundations which came along with their origins.

Science being based upon some basic "philosophical" assumptions isn't news to scientists, as far as I have ever read or learned. One can't even walk out the front door, let alone attempt to understand the natural universe, if he/she doesn't first make at least a few "metaphysical" presuppositions regarding reality.

Okay. But these few metaphysical presuppositions can still be thrown into question. I am really interested in these presuppositions that people take for granted when arguing for science. What justifications do we have for them? Why aren't our reasons for accepting them any less speculative?
To be a skeptic, I think we really need to start doubting right here at the threshold.

However, it is what happens from there that I am inclined to say the scientist shines, and the armchair metaphysician becomes no more an authority than the poet or storyteller.

Well, the system based on these presuppositions would no doubt give 'authority' to science. Of course, because science invented this autocratic system for itself, just like religion does its in its own realm. IOW, the authority of science is its own creation.

I believe I have made an error in using the term philosophy, when I mean in particular to question the philosophical enterprise known as metaphysics.

In that case I agree with you. The death metaphysics was announced by Nietzsche when he said "God is dead."

I have never thought of science as being able to provide prescriptive 'why' answers. I do, however, think far too many philosophers are far too quick to play the Naturalistic Fallacy card out of some fear or paranoia of science.

Oh really? Do you care to back that up? Or is that just your own speculation?

Empirical research can and often should play a part in informing any sort of why questioning (and answering), including in the ethical realm.

I agree. I never said we should abandon empiricism, merely that it is not the only tool we have.

As for explaining the totality of existence, I am not even sure I know what that means, let alone if it is possible. All the same, I can't see how any attempt to explain existence, if not grounded in the scientific method, is any different than blatant make-believe or blind and baseless speculation.

I also can't see why the same doesn't apply for the metaphysical presuppositions behind science.

What's the first thing someone is going to demand should another person claim to be able to explain the "totality of existence"? Empirical evidence, I imagine. And if the claimant says, well, I thought it up in my study, what's the most likely reply? Can I test this idea somehow? In other words, science.

Only scientists think that science is the only tool by which we could measure our ideas. That is simply because they can't step out of the presuppositions constructed by science, and look at things from another perspective. There are other perspectives besides the empirical one, the literary model is an example of which I speak used in contemporary philosophy.

Again, I am not entirely sure I know what you mean -- what would qualify as non-physical? And what non-scientific means are able to explain such non-physical, er, things?

By non-physical things, I mean things like emotions and even the faculty of reason itself. Now, I know there tends to be high levels of oxytocin in your body when you're experiencing an emotion like love, or you get piloerections when you're scared, as such. But I would consider those things physical manifestations of our emotions. I don't think love is equivalent to a certain level of oxytocin in the blood combined with other reproductive hormones; the feeling of fear or being in love is something else altogether different than their their biological appearance.
By that I mean when someone says "I'm in love" vs "I have high levels of oxytocin in my blood," there is a very important distinction in the *meaning* of those two phrases. Analytic philosophers don't seem to get that.

IMO, this is a bit of a naive, if not also misinformed, understanding of science and scientific theories. What makes me so sure today's science is more valid than past science? First, I wouldn't use "valid" here -- today's science is certainly more advanced. As for why I might dare say today's science is more advanced than the past, and furthermore, why this set of affairs gives me cause to trust that today's science will be tomorrow's less-advanced kind ... surely you don't really need to ask me that, do you? Have you tried to cure any diseases lately with leeches? Have you attempted to play any original Atari cartridges on an X-Box?

No, my question was regarding how we determine the truth/falsity of scientific theories. I know they get more 'advanced' overtime.
What I mean is that by today's standards, scientific theories of the past is full of flaws. But by what standard should we judge today's standards? I was commenting on the lack of an absolute standard by which we are to judge science; yet, science hypocritically claims itself to be that kind of absolute when judging other systems of thought, i.e. philosophy.

Given the minimal presuppositions necessary to even begin a coherent examination of reality, and to share that examination with others, I still would NOT use the word "faith" in describing my endorsement of science. In fact, the methodological approach to reality inherent in science is the polar opposite of that found in the religious dogmatist or metaphysician. ALL presuppositions are subject to review and revision in science -- that is, by definition, science.

Correction, theories under the specific framework of scientific presuppositions are all subject to review and revision within that given framework.

I would also like to add in response to that last comment that although the *methodology* in science vs that of religion is completely different. The *faith* you have in it is the same.


Edited for spelling & grammar only.

exnihilo

To say that philosophy is to science as astrology is to astronomy is little more than an evasion of the issue. This straw man analogy simply does not hold, so your point is irrelevant, not to mention dishonest. If you want to argue that science is somehow superior to philosophy why not show how philosophy is flawed instead of arguing against a defenseless position.

Once again claiming that assumptions of basic reality are somehow related to the object of philosophy (maybe it was 400 years ago) is irrelevant and isn't meatphysical besides. There are really no metaphysical assumptions in the example that you cite, unless you are arguing from a Platonic view of the world, which is in direct conflict with the scientific position you are trying to promote. Do you actually believe that there is a major difference in the activities of what you rhetorically refer to as the "armchair metaphysician" and your knight in "shining" armor, the scientist. Thomas Kuhn, to the infinite dismay of scientists, positivists and logicians everywhere, decisively illustrated just how ill-informed and false the conception of science as portrayed in histories of science was/is. Observation and demonstration aren't the only factors in the development of scientific theory, although they are certainly important factors. Concensus in the scientific community is also an important factor and in some cases the deciding one at that, which brings much more than just evidence and confirmation into the equation.

Yes, you have, which is, perhaps, due to your general confusion concerning what philosophy entails. Exactly which philosophers are you referring to when you say: " I do, however, think far too many philosophers are far too quick to play the Naturalistic Fallacy card out of some fear or paranoia of science." In contemporary philosophy at least since Nietzsche, and especially in Continental philosphy, the "fear" to which you refer is not apparent in anything I am familiar with. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case, especially among analytic philosophers.
If Science is incapable of answering why questions, how can you justify the conclussion that philosophy will end, seemingly ecplipsed by science. Such an assertion makes no sense whatsoever in relation to the question raised, actually it is in direct conflict with it.
So are you assuming that science has at its basis a teleological drive towards perfection. That sounds more than a bit metaphysical to me. The cold hard fact is that every single previous scientific theory has been replaced by the current set of "accepted truth", which means that the previous set of "truths" were flawed in one way or another, if not altogether false. Your example of the Atari and X box is illustartive, for if that is what you base your faith in science on we are wasting our time. what would you say about the value of nuclear weapons, germ warfare, (that have made the destruction of the entire world a very real possibility) and other such scientific creations as compared to their antecedents.
Your use of words is a matter of personal preference. If it is not faith why not tell us how the theory of relativity works, or an account of the interaltionships between subatomic particles. The fact is the majority of people routinely accept all sorts of scientific pronouncements on blind faith, seemingly on the assumption that if a number of scientists say something, then it has to be true. History abounds with examples that show how naive and even dangerous this is social darwinism is just one example of how this kind of thinking can lead to tragedy and that is a fact of the history of science that many would like to forget.

Adrian Selby

Philosophy is also a method, in my view, thinking philosophically entails, usually, the questioning of the foundations of statements, presuppositions etc. and generally applies as a subject's own analysis of its theories (such as metaethics and meta-other stuff

In this respect, whatever pronouncements are made about things, one can ask questions of those pronouncements that are the kinds of questions that philosophers ask.

I don't think it will die for this reason, and of course concur with large parts of the responses so far.

Rusting Car Bumper

Actually philosophy is being destroyed by postmodernism but that's another story.

Science cannot replace philosophy.

Science by its nature for example cannot tell us what we ought to do.

It also cannot properly describe experience.

For example, let us assume that someone has worked out how to decipher neural brain activity such that they can attach a device to your head and determine if you are seeing or tasting an apple.

Now let us assume that this person performing this evaluation on you has never tasted an apple. If I then blindfold the person and give them a slice of something to taste they cannot tell me if the thing he is tasting is an apple. The most he could do is attach the machine to himself and determine it. This implies that experience itself contains some knowledge outside of imperical methods.

DC

Adrian Selby

May I refer you to recent threads on materialism, this is discussed in great depth