Science and Philosophy

In epistemology there is no such thing as starting from self-evident truths. Whatever we may choose to call truth is a product of a coming together of things and our understanding these connections. Everything that we know is the product of our mind having formed a web of connections. Our brain goes blank if we cannot make connections.

In making connections we create a mental map. We gather particular information and fit it into our map of reality. Our maps are not absolute in their refinement. We do not grasp reality whole or complete. Knowing essence remains illusive. Knowing the essence of anything requires complete knowledge rather than just approximations.

Science as method refines what we perceive as best we can. Scientists hypothesize, waiting for someone to make a more sophisticated approximation.

There is a difference between science as method and the philosophy of science. Biologists employs the scientific method while some of them go beyond science and believe in God. One who believes in gods can work at science separate from his belief in the supernatural. Science as method addresses empirical questions. Biologists employing scientific method attempt merely to describe empirical matters, not questions related to the supernatural. This scientific method had origins in philosophy. People were free to employ the scientific method who did not believe in the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science holds that people should limit their beliefs to that which is empirical, in other words exclude that which is supernatural. The philosophy of science is agnostic about matters beyond the empirical.

Some who include metaphysics in their philosophy accuse those who adhere to the philosophy of science as having run from the question of God. Some of them describe agnostics as being as metaphysical as they. They cannot see difference between their claims to knowledge and saying "I do not know." Those who adhere to the philosophy of science, on the other hand, are compelled to avoid trying to prove metaphysics erroneous. If they are to remain true to their agnosticism they must maintain greater modesty than metaphysicians.

Regarding history and the methods of science, the 20th century philosopher Karl Popper argued against over-reaching claims of knowledge, including where the world was going as if human history were on a steel track that humanity could not alter by choice. Hannah Arendt joined Popper concerning history. She complained that ideologues pretend to know the mysteries of the whole.

October 27, 2007: Science holds ideas tentatively, something that Dinesh D'Souza did not communicate in his debate at King's College, broadcast today on C-SPAN. D'Souza described science as making conclusions based on faith and metaphyics. He used the induction fallacy as an example: the assumption that because "A" has produced "B" a thousand times that "A" will produce "B" the next time. A scientist assuming this in the spirit of science does so with belief that is tentative. In other words he is ready to give up his hypothesis or to make his hypothesis more complex or sophisticated on discovering that "A" on its 1001st occurence does not produce "B." This is different from holding a belief as an absolute or an article of faith as metaphysical ideologues do.

Returning to the issue of modesty, scientists need to do more than just hold their ideas tentatively. For example, they might design a chemical pesticide intended to help agriculture, but because they are ignorant of aspects of the agricultural environment involved they might do more damage than good. Unfortunately scientists can be insufficiently cautious, leading them to prematurely conclude their work, in other words too little science.

address of this article: http://www.fsmitha.com/com/popper.htm