FOR 802 Forest Science Research: Week 2—The Philosophy of Science
In their origins, philosophy & science were indistinguishable; science was called "natural philosophy;"
I. What is Philosophy?
Philosophy (from the Greek philein, to love, & sophia, wisdom)
“A search for general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than
observational means; a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought.”
(Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary).
“... constructs theories about man and the universe, and offers them as grounds for belief and
action (metaphysics); it examines critically everything that may be offered as a ground for
belief or action, including its own theories, with a view to the elimination of inconsistency and
error (analysis).” (P. Caws)
Metaphysics - speculative, requires breadth of experience & imagination; an important part of
science but must be applied sparingly & with caution
Analysis - analytical, requires narrowness of concentration, patience and insight. The dominant
mode in philosophy (and science) today, but often to the exclusion of metaphysics
Four major branches of philosophy:
Ontology*- the theory of being; deals with what exists
Axiology* - ethics & aesthetics; deals with what matters
Epistemology** - the theory of knowledge; deals with what can be known
Logic** - the theory of inference; deals with what makes sense
* not directly related to the scientific method -- the context of science (more later)
** the major concerns of the philosophy of science; the content of science
Epistemology: What is knowledge? In the context of science "the ability to make true statements &
defend them as true."
So then, what is truth?
Empirical truth - based on experience (= experiments) in the world
Systematic truth - depends on the place of statements within a system, i.e. the accumulated
body of knowledge
Most of what we know is systematic truth, because our acquaintance with the world is limited.
Actually, everyday knowledge is a mixture of systematic and empirical truths, together with beliefs,
convictions, instinct, memories, etc.
BUT, the origin of most knowledge is empirical, i.e. someone at some time experienced it and
then recorded that experience, although certain knowledge may be traced back to revelation, intuition,
or pure reason.
Is all kowledge equally reliable? Does observation/experience give an accurate picture of reality? What
about things unobservable?
Some philosophers argue that knowledge is conditional upon a set of pre-existing conditions—a
paradigm shift may completely upset the knowledge applecart
The extreme—absolute knowledge is not possible—the relativism of skeptics like David Hume
(see Miller’s paper)
Logic: What is inference and why is it important?
Empirical truth plus valid inference = deeper (i.e. more systematic) truth
Facts alone do not lead to truth; reliable inferences must be drawn from them. But, premises or
assumptions must be factually true and inferences drawn from them must be valid.
Pure logic has no place in science; it must be based on empirical or well-established systematic
truth. In fact many scientists believe logical reasoning often has prevented the acceptance of new
truths
II.
The Relationship of Philosophy and Science
Science alone cannot improve the quality of life or give peace, happiness and contentment to
individuals in a societal context (in fact it can do the opposite); it must be extended and interpreted by
philosophers
Philosophy finds science in the world, but as fragments embedded in contemporary culture & mixed up
with lots of other things; it attempts to create order from this confusion
“In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which
makes the forest possible.” (Ayn Rand)
According to E.O. Wilson eventually a unity or consiliensce of the domains of human understanding—
biological, physical, and social—may be possible; i.e. a common body of abstract principles can be
elucidated that explains the way the world works in toto
2