PHILOSOPHY OF

SCIENCE
Why to Study It?
Where Does It Come From?

Why to Study It?

Certain things in life are extremely hard to define.
Philosophy is the tool usually we employ to make such
definitions.
Ironically, it is almost impossible to make a definition of
philosophy itself as there is no other overarching umbrella
we can use.

Sometimes, we can understand certain things without

definitions by way of comparison, or, by way of relation.
The current method for this purpose is comparing and
relating philosophy with anything we assume scientific.
After all, we know the definition of sciences simply because
they are recent endeavors of humanity.
The relation between the sciences (physical, biological,
social, behavioral) and philosophy is so close that
philosophy of science is a central concern for both

Philosophy of Science?
Science is arguably a distinctive and the only major contribution
of western thought to humanitys common intellectual enterprise.
By way of influence, it touched the life of every single culture.
Philosophy of science is a bridge between philosophy and those
scientific disciplines that broke away from it in the last three and
a half centuries.
If philosophy is hard to define, then, philosophy of science is
even harder to define. A working definition of philosophy may the
the following:
Philosophy deals with two sets of questions:
1. Deals with questions left unanswered by science, and perhaps
they never be able to answer. 2. It answers why the sciences
cannot answer these questions.
Also, whether those questions are valid (i.e. logical) is also a
philosophical debate.
Sometimes the line between science and philosophy may be
blurry and and ongoing debate between the two is also a subject
to be attention by philosophy of science: free will vs. fate, mind

Science-Philosophy Relationship
Scientific advancements influence philosophic debates. The
opposite is also true: philosophical questions are attacked by
scientists. They need each other to define itself.

Sometimes we may assume that science departed from

philosophy as early as Euclidian geometry about space (i.e.
two-dimensional thinking).
True scientific independence started by Newton: natural
philosophy vs. physics. Since then, scientific compartments
always broke away from philosophy (e.g. physics vs.
metaphysics, biology vs. meaning of life, computer vs. logic,
psychology vs. fate).
However, each discipline leaves certain questions to
regarding that field to philosophy (what is a number, what is
time, what is a point)
Even though science broke away from philosophy, it always
provoked new philosophical debates: science of biology
provoking debates with religion; whether life has a purpose or
not

Method of Science is Philosophical

Philosophy of science is inescapable for science no matter
how much they seem to be at odds with each other. All
scientific methodology is a field of philosophy.

In the final analysis, all scientific departments are heavily

dependent upon two logical reasoning methods.
Deductively valid arguments: Deriving specific results from
general theories. Scientifically more reliable.

Inductive arguments: Moving from finite body of

data/examples to form general theories.

Science sometimes uses the second one even though less

reliable. However, science can never answer why it
employs unreliable inductive method.
Logic, a specific area of philosophy deals with such issues.
Therefore, the two are inextricably linked.

Subdisciplines of Philosophy
Philosophy, like science, has many helping tools to face the
challenge from science.

Logic shows us valid forms of reasoning. Without following

the rules of logic, no scientific theorizing is possible.
Aesthetics studies the nature of beauty. It does not need any
scientific explanation or description, as we cannot develop a
universal understanding about beauty.
Ethics (and political philosophy) gives us clues about moral
values and the feeling of justice. (Such as, law is scientific, but
it may not fulfill our desire for justice).
Epistemology is the nature, extent and justifications of
knowledge. It is the theory of knowledge. It tells us when and
under what circumstances something is scientifically proven.
Metaphysics is the area of philosophy about the things things
we believe exist.

Normative Questions

Only philosophy deals with normative issues; or questions

about value. Scientific disciplines employ these values but
they never challenge or define them.
Right vs. wrong: it is used by psychology, but a psychologist
cannot scientifically define it.
Good vs. bad across cultures: We use these values in political
studies, but ethics is the philosophical tool to tell us what they
are.
Just vs. unjust: Is mostly utilized by legal studies, but it is a
matter of political philosophy and legal philosophy, and not
scientific or legally describable.
Beautiful or ugly: It is a matter of aesthetics, which has no
universal scientific measurement.
So, in general we can say that sciences are pretty much
descriptive, or positive.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is normative.

Science and Pseudo-Questions

Science is extremely arrogant. Science argues that it can answer
everything. If there is no answer for certain things, science argues,
such a question is not a valid one.
Science claims that only pseudo-questions are left for philosophy and
truly intellectual scientists need not concern themselves with such
empty business.

However, only epistemology and its philosophical instruments can

answer what kind of questions are really good questions, and which
ones are pseudo-questions.

Some questions may be a perfectly legitimate question (What was

happening before big bang? How did inorganic molecules turned into
organic ones? What is a number? What is time?)

The fact that we cannot answer them does not automatically render
them stupid questions. However, if one asks What time is it on the
surface of the Sun? we can discuss its stupidity. Nevertheless, the
answer is still expected from philosophy.

So the science is unavoidable for all disciplines of science for all

questions until they can be answered (or, they will never be
answered).

Questions About Science?

Scientists are extremely dedicated to defend the integrity of science:
find objective scientific answers; even if science does not provide any
answer simply refuse other answers!
For some of our concerns which science is not able to help us with,
we usually seek help from other sources. Philosophy of science may
be helpful in this quest as well.
Some of them are: Belief/faith, astrology, creation science,
intelligent design, eastern mysticism. Some people try to find
answers out of desperation, while some others truly believe in them
as alternatives to science.
Sometimes the boundary of scientific method or scientific question is
blurry. For example, novel approaches in medicine may provide
comfort without experimental scientific methods.
They might have some truth behind them and we might understand in
the future.
Both side is criticizing each other heavily: science argues that the
other side is nonsense; other side argues that scientific method is
imposing a scientific imperialism over truth.

They both need the tools of philosophy of science for their questions
about content and method of it and the other side of the debate as a

Natural vs. Social/Behavioral

Sciences
The role of philosophy is also visible even within the scientific realm.
After biology, science entered the sphere of human being, which was
beyond the reach of natural sciences before.
Later emancipation of social and behavioral sciences are getting
even more human-centered. Therefore, the gap between natural
sciences and social/behavioral sciences are becoming more
problematic.
In natural sciences rules are more clear cut. The success or failure in
them is very obvious.
Recent advancements in social and behavioral sciences employed
scientific methodology in order to be more reliable. Nevertheless,
their scientific findings are always contested by natural scientists.

For example; how can we decisively find scientific answers for

genetic bases of violence, criminality, mental illness, intelligence?
Philosophy of science plays a crucial prescriptive role in deciding the
right scientific method (e.g. data gathering techniques) to eliminate
science vs. science debate.

Modern Science as Philosophy?

Challenges to philosophy is obvious through millennia.
Science is taking away some of the philosophical questions
by answering them.

In other words, philosophy is the free pool for scientists to

start their inquiry. However, scientific advancements do not
only take away those question marks. They also add new
questions to the pool of philosophy.
For example; some scientific laws with no exception (e.g.
Newtonian laws) gave philosophers ideas about deterministic
laws about human behavior.
Philosophy owes the following quintessential question to
science: Is human a complex physical object and must follow
the same Newtonian laws as all materials do?
If the answer is yes, then, there is no real freedom of choice in
actual life, as we simply follow certain predetermined laws of
physics!
If our actions are determined by our physical state, how can
we be blamed for our actions..!? Ctd.

Physics vs. Theology

Physical determinism argues that all matter is bound by same exact
laws without any exception. If that is the case, then, a body is also
subject to same laws and what is going to happen in the future is
determined by the same laws of physics.

Determinism as philosophical tool raised discussions with the advent

of Darwinian biology: if our body is a complex mix of biophysical
material, if the matter turned into biological material by the same
rules of physics and probability, then, how can we justify intelligent
design?
Theologians and organized religions argues that physical laws and
biochemical processes cannot explain human behavior and human
will.
Quintessential question: does the science and religion clash? Is
biological diversity, complexity, and adaptation are all signs of Gods
greatness, or?
Newton and Darwins philosophical materialism threatened
philosophy of mind and moral philosophy in 19th century. For them,
the purpose of life was no more than an illusion.
This is visible in every aspect of Western society of that time. i.e.
human is a simple biological organism and we do not need to attach
a special value to it!

Physics in 20th Century

In 19th century, philosophy was under the heavy influence of the
determinism of evolutionary biology regarding the value of human
being. However, philosophy was only utilizing Newtonian physics.

It is another development in the area of physics (not the

philosophers) that shook the foundations of Darwinian philosophical
materialism.
20th century sub-atomic indeterminism turned the tide back, and
philosophy also noted this remarkable advancement in physics.

Quantum mechanics and its probabilistic explanations went beyond

Newtonian determinism. Even though Newtonian physics held true
99% of the time, the invisible world of the atom (the smallest piece
indivisible!) was opening an immense world ford for indeterminsim
(and human choice in behavior).
That is; the principle of same cause always brings same effect just
does not work. There were no precise deterministic laws controlling
the movement of sub-atomic particles. Atom was not indivisible, so
was the materialism of Newton and Darwin.

Question to consider: Does this validate the importance of free will,

moral responsibility (i.e. philosophy) or deepens the issue with
ultimate indeterminacy?

A One-Way Street?
One major question should be revisited: Is there a one way
relationship between philosophy and science?
Do we take away questions from science by way of physics
and explain it? Does it take us to the eventual dark hole
where we as humans just disappear and become mere
matter?
Physicalism (same rules, no exception) determinism (our
actions are physical, no human effect) atheism (if so, no
religion is necessary for the matter) nihilism (we mean
nothing in real sense!)?

Then we must know the science (strength and weaknesses)

well enough to deal with such difficult philosophical questions.
There is no one-way street taking us from philosophy to the
sphere of science all the time. We go back and forth between
them.
That is, we can take philosophical question and try to explain
by way of science. Then, we can take the arguments of
science and revisit our philosophical stance in many areas

Good for Social Sciences?

In general, we can argue that 20th century physics
was welcome by social and behavioral sciences:
human mind is beyond the reach of natural sciences.
If so, should we greet this, or feel bad about it?
Social sciences deeply depend on this fact of
scientific indeterminism about human action even
though they are inspired by natural sciences.
Is this an obstacle for social sciences, or something
to cheer for? (For natural scientists, the answer is
bad, as they cannot feel purely scientific. For social
scientists, the answer is good, as we have more
scientific toys to employ).
Is mind a physical device working in the same line
with a computer? Well, probably not.

Therefore
Even though science and philosophy are desperately
in need of each other they still disagree on two major
topics:
1. whether there are limitations to scientific inquiry;
and
2. whether we are constantly moving toward a purely
scientific world.
Even this controversial debate shows us that
philosophy is not losing its ground.
Limitations on a scientific world-view is in the realm of
philosophy.

Science OF the West?

Is scientific method an invention of the western civilization?
Even if so, it is maybe the only welcome contribution of
Europe to the rest of the world.

Whether we like or heavily criticize it, we all learned, or

adapted to it as a result of European political domination.
Other cultures contributed in art, music, literature,
architecture, religion, political institutions, ethical and
political values. The Western society by no means
convinced other societies about the universal value of its
economic order, legal codes, ethics, and many other
normative issues.
Even deeper debate is that the West did not all of a sudden
discover the accumulated experience of the previous
civilizations by its own right. To develop scientific
methodology, they needed the inherited knowledge of the
Islamic civilization, which saved and enriched previous
civilizations.
We should discuss and evaluate good and bad influence

Two Major Questions

1. Why only, or first in the West?
Indeed it is maybe the most infamous impact of Europe to the world.
Being close to the center of all ancient civilizations, they were
naturally immune to many animal-borne diseases. And they had
access to tech advancements all the way to China.
Natural incentives for long distance ocean navigation made
Europeans a deadly disease over other populations and cultures.
Others died, but Europeans thrived. Simply, guns and germs of
Europe killed others.
2. Why is science the only western achievement to have been
adopted by every other culture?
The answer to this question still remains open. Because, even today
we criticize many foundations of western scientific method.

If we just presume that we all universally adopt the western methods,

we can say that scientific inquiry requires some sort of rejection of
authority. We can make historical analyses about why Europeans
rejected authority (of God?)
Is it because Europeans were smart enough to go against authority;
or is it because their rejection of authority was necessitated by some