The Parallelism of Philosophy and Science

... my position is a naturalistic one; I see philosophy not as an a priori propaedeutic or groundwork for science, but as continuous with science. I see philosophy and science as in the same boat - a boat which, to revert to Neurath's figure as I so often do, we can rebuild only at sea while staying afloat in it. There is no external vantage point, no first philosophy.

W.V.O. QUINE (1908-2000), Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, p.126

W.V.O. Quine, a prominent philosopher of the Anglo-American analytic tradition, asserts that philosophy is not merely an antecedent nor a counterpart to science – rather, it is interlinked. Historically, philosophy encompassed all intellectual disciplines, including the sciences and the humanities, rather than mere thought. Due to the rise of science as being considered a separate discipline, people have seemed to regard science and philosophy as different. Quine disagrees, viewing them as fundamentally connected. However, much like how a sub-branch emerges from a larger branch – i.e. biochemistry from chemistry (the former originally being encompassed by chemistry as a general discipline) – science emerged from philosophy as its own branch. This is necessarily so, because the viewpoints of science and philosophy are fundamentally different.

     Therefore, this essay seeks to establish the essence of science and philosophy as inherently separate by examining the historical divide between the two, then exploring the ontological difference between the two. Furthermore, this essay will then establish the necessity of both disciplines as equally important for knowledge acquisition.

The Cultural and Historical Divide Between Science and Philosophy

     Historically, science and philosophy were connected. Rather, science could be considered a subdiscipline within philosophy. This can be seen in the reference of science in ancient Greece as “natural philosophy” – the systematic exploration of the natural world was simply another way to cultivate the “love of wisdom” that the ancient Greeks established as a discipline. For example, Thales of Miletus, who is considered the first philosopher even before Socrates, spent much of his philosophy searching for an “arche,” or a fundamental essence to the world. He eventually concluded that this arche was water; proceeding philosophers continued to search for this arche as well. The nature of these philosophers’ works as seeking to find the building blocks of the world can then be analyzed as a proto-science – a discipline that seeks to organize the world into understandable systems, despite not meeting the modern scientific criteria outlined today. 

     Later, Democritus of the atomist school came very close to modern science in his theory of the world being made of atoms, or “atomos,” the Greek word for indivisible. This theory was eventually proved to be scientifically correct by prominent scientists of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, such as Niels Bohr, Mendeleev, and Albert Einstein. The concluding statement we can draw from the Greeks’ practice is that despite not having the means of science (which will be later explored ontologically in this essay), the scientific mindset of discovering the world as an end prevails. 

     Then, throughout most of history, up until the point historians would generally consider as the advent of modernity (overarchingly, the era succeeding major intellectual transformations such as the Scientific Revolution, Renaissance, etc.), philosophy was inseparable from science. Prominent philosophers were also renowned polymaths – Rene Descartes, the “father of modern philosophy,” also significantly explored science, and was also a pioneer of geometry, having created the Cartesian plane. Moreover, Isaac Newton, more prominently known for calculus and physics, devoted a significant portion of his works to theology and philosophy. Others, such as Spinoza and Leibniz, also spent much time in science as part of their philosophy. Before this age of scientific revolution, various other attempts at science such as alchemy, astrology, mysticism (which would now be classified as pseudosciences or parasciences) were continually made.

     The watershed that began to split philosophy and science could generally be considered around the 18th century. Here, fueled by the spirit of the Scientific Revolution, scientists’ voices began to grow, establishing science as a more evidence-based practice, ruling out supernatural or mystical elements as unscientific. This mindset continued to grow, with prominent philosophers like Karl Popper seeking to clarify the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience. Eventually, science and philosophy became conventionally considered as separate. And it is to an extent correct that philosophy is generally considered the groundwork for science by modernity. For example, the scientific method, devised by English philosopher Francis Bacon, is considered a philosophical introduction to the principles of science. Perhaps the divide can also be considered even more starkly wide today – after all, philosophy is generally categorized in the humanities, while science is considered STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). As such, it would not be unreasonable to say that the modern consensus is that philosophy is, as Quine stated, a propaedeutic to science – or even further, an entirely unrelated discipline. 

     Quine and Bacon’s attempts to make philosophy scientific are fundamentally flawed because the topic that philosophy is analyzing does not align with the scientific perspective. While science tries to be as objective as possible, philosophy does not necessarily have to be – and some areas can even be considered inherently unscientific, such as that of intuition or faith-based practices. Moreover, philosophy does not necessarily have to be “objective” in a sense, because philosophy is analysis of how we view certain things – requiring acknowledgement of the subjective self. Thus, this brings this essay to the ontological differences between science and philosophy.

The Ontological Difference Between Science and Philosophy

     Philosophy is fundamentally different – not simply culturally different – from science. This is because the approach of science has now evolved into a materialistic one – while philosophy allows the possibility of other methods of knowledge acquisition.

     The primary principles of science can be considered as such: science is materialistic, and tries to be as objective as possible. Since science is materialistic, it posits that all laws of the world are definitely governed by physical properties and characteristics. Moreover, since it tries to be as objective as possible, it tries to remove the subjective experience as much as possible in order to describe the world as is, removed from human interference. Some corollary principles that derive from these primary two are that science must have descriptive and predictive power, and must be systematic – in other words, it tries to describe universalities, rather than simple occurrences. 

     Science itself cannot be purely objective – after all, the process of scientific investigation is performed by a subject, or a human. However, through its materialistic and evidence-based practice, it does aim to accomplish the furthest extent of objectivity as possible. Therefore, it does not necessarily definitively rule out other possibilities, but simply considers the materialistic perspective as the most apt according to what is empirically observed. 

     This principle can be outlined through the demarcation between science and pseudoscience, outlined by Karl Popper. Unlike previous doctrines of verificationism, things must have the capacity to be proven wrong, rather than exclusively be proven right, to be considered scientific. This allows the possibility of being wrong, and acknowledges the limitations of science. Otherwise, verificationism allows the possibility of conforming apparently objective scientific principles around subjective experiences and biases, reducing scientific viability as being generalizable beyond one’s own subjective experience. 

     Without the nature of an “objective aim,” which is the ontological foundation of science, a practice cannot be considered scientific. Yet, purporting to be objective regardless leads to classification as a pseudoscience. A practice that fully embraces a lack of objectivity becomes philosophy. 

     Philosophy, on the other hand, fully takes into account subjectivity and embraces it. Philosophy, from an ontological standpoint, considers how humans interact with anything. Yet, this does not mean philosophy lacks principles. Rather, philosophy is precisely about finding principles. For example, the philosophy of science explores foundational principles of science through a subjective lens, and a philosophy of history explores history through a subjective lens and analyzes it. However, the method through which philosophy finds principles is colored with the acknowledgement of the subjective. 

    In other words, science is about finding principles about the objective and external, while philosophy is about finding principles about our subjective experience regarding things. For example, Soren Kierkegaard famously stated, “truth is subjectivity.” While external truth may not necessarily be subjective (in fact, to claim that one’s own subjective view is objectively true is to break the principles of falsificationism, and it is a pseudoscience). In essence, the reality we perceive is exclusively informed by our subjective experiences, and Kierkegaard acknowledges that what we experience is simply informed by our perspectives. Perhaps it is a phenomenological perspective to acknowledge that philosophy is simply about understanding and analyzing, rather than seeking to describe objective reality.

     This is why Hegel’s geist is criticized as unscientific, and should remain as a purely philosophical theory. It seeks to describe the external world objectively, without acknowledging the limits of one’s own subjectivity. As such, it cannot be falsified, because the entire perspective seeks to generalize a subjective analysis to a wider objective reality. On the other hand, existentialism can remain as a philosophical theory because it seeks to describe the internal – a subjective exploration of the subjective. It acknowledges the boundaries within its exploration. Another example of a successful philosophical exploration of the external, rather than the internal, are the critical theorists. Rather than, like Hegel, seek to objectify their claims, they acknowledge the inherent subjectivity within their claims and frame their analysis as simply that – an analysis, or a way to understand the objective world, rather than an objective descriptor of the objective world. Michel Foucault does well in this – rather than claiming that power dynamics are ontologically existent within the fabric of reality itself, he analyzes the relationships between people to come to a subjective understanding of the interactions between people. 

     Both science and philosophy can be empirical, but only philosophy is able to go beyond the empirical and materialistic because it is not about proving an objective right, but about creating a system of understanding that most aptly conforms to an objective right. Thus, science can be informed by philosophy, as seen in the philosophy of science, and philosophy can be informed by science, as seen in discoveries regarding psychology. But, the fundamental principles between them differ. 

    Therefore, science should adhere to specific principles. That is the nature of objects – there is a defined essence that should be conformed to. And science is about discovering the objective nature of things. On the other hand, philosophy need not conform to specific principles, but it certainly would not hurt to be informed by specific principles. Philosophy too, can be inaccurate or accurate, but that is simply the result of one’s choice to aim to be correct.

The Necessity of Science and Philosophy

     Despite the differences between science and philosophy, one is not better than the other – nor is one more important or required than the other. The necessity arises due to the fact that we must acknowledge the limits of our subjectivity, but also to the fact that acknowledging the limits of our subjectivity does not mean we should be complacent. We must seek to go beyond our subjectivity, but we must also avoid forgetting that transcending our own subjectivity should always be informed by our limits – otherwise, it becomes pseudoscience. In essence, philosophy is the realm in which we can fully acknowledge and embrace our subjectivity. Science is the practice of transcending it, and for practical purposes, falsificationism allows the acknowledgement of its limits by only considering science provisionally true until it is proven false. 

     The reason we must come to use both philosophy and science is both for practical reasons and for metaphysical reasons. By being able to understand the objective world to the greatest extent we can, and by being able to understand how we interact with it, we can thrive and flourish in this world to a greater extent. This has been true for all of history – scientific and philosophical progress leads to gain on a wider level, and it is true on an individual level. Being able to understand one’s own thoughts and the world around them, one can make more informed decisions. Moreover, on a metaphysical level, philosophy and science are necessary because their ontological nature aligns with the specific topics that each seeks to discover. 

     W.V.O. Quine stated that philosophy and science are in the same boat. Rather, they are in different boats, heading in different directions to map the world that we live in. The different nature of the approaches of philosophy and science are necessary to acquire truth. Unilaterally heading in one direction may lead to failure, so it is imperative that we consider both approaches, in a measured but committed way, so that we may best come to find truth. Both approaches of science and philosophy can be used to analyze social issues at large. For example, in Korea, birth rates are severely declining. Scientifically, this can be analyzed through economic, agricultural, and sociological trends, to name a few. On the other hand, it can be philosophically analyzed using cultural analyses of Confucianism, liberalism, and paradigm shifts, to name a few. Through these various ways of science and philosophy, we can come to understand the world at large and begin the process of making it, objectively and subjectively, a better place.  

     Science and philosophy are two ways to gain knowledge, and Quine argues that they are interlinked. However, they are two different ways to gain knowledge due to the ontological differences in their principles. Science is materialistic and objective, while philosophy allows the possibility of other options due to its subjectivity. Therefore, they are fundamentally different; regardless, they are both necessary for the future.