Philosophy of Science is about as Useful to Scientists as Ornithology is to Birds - Essay Example

Data Philosophy of Science is about as Useful to Scientists as Ornithology is to Birds Richard Feynman was a well-known scientist specializing in physics. In his time, he was a brilliant physician and won several awards for his contributions in physics. Feynman is one of the few scientists who made their say about philosophy known. At one point, he asserted that philosophy is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. This analogy, posed by Feynman is critically controversial. It has caused a heated debate among scientists and philosophers. Some scientists reason that philosophy is not important in science. On the hand, others argue that an understanding of theories, assumptions, scientific realism, and other issues handled by philosophy are critical and their applications in analyzing science is essential. An understanding of the analogy posed by Feynman is essential before a scientist draws conclusions or raises criticism. Ornithology is the study of birds, characterization, and conservation of species and geographical distribution of bird species. Ornithology seeks to establish all facts and information about all the birds existing in nature and use that information to conserve all species (Lange, 2007: 19). Ornithology confers many benefits to birds. Some people argue that ornithology is saving some bird species that were at the verge of extinction. Studies of such species led to establishment of strategies that have helped conserve them preventing extinction. In essence, birds benefit from ornithology but they have no idea what of the description of ornithology. In his analogy, Feynman considers the importance of philosophy of science as of equal importance to the scientists as ornithology to birds. From this analogy, it is clear that Feynman does not hold philosophy with high esteem. Feynman was the scientist who described philosophers as people who used stupid remarks. In order to understand both sides of the analogy, an analysis of what the philosophy of science seeks to establish is essential. Philosophy of science is a field that seeks to understand the underlying foundations, assumptions, methodologies, and implications made in science (Rosenberg, 2005:53). Philosophers of science are out to validate works of science using reasoning and logic. Philosophers tend to question why things happen the way they do. Science is a field that establishes answers to the questionings from philosophy. According to Feynman, the philosophy of science is an aspect that helps scientists in immense ways although the scientist may never understand the ways in which it does all these. Feynman, as a physician believed in the empirical calculations of science and did not understand the philosophy surrounding science. However, his analogy gives scientists the impetus to analyze the importance of philosophy to science. There is a probability that philosophy contributes a whole lot to science but scientists do not notice. On the other hand, it would be rational to analyze how the two fields interrelate. Many scientists do not believe in philosophy today. This is contrary to what used to be the case before. Many scientists of the old times merged philosophy and science. In the old times, scientists combined science, philosophy, and theology. In the life of a scientist today, experimental evidence is fundamental to prove any theory right. Scientists need to understand and define methodologies that lead to a conclusion. Philosophy applies reasoning and rationality and is not an option for many scientists today. It is worth noting that most of scientific breakthroughs started as philosophical enquiries in the past. Pioneers in science found philosophy a worthwhile field and gave it some consideration as a field that could offer insights on nature (Lange, 2007:33). Albert Einstein is a good example of scientists who attached value to philosophy. In one of early books, Einstein argued that everyone should apply philosophy. Some philosophers argue that scientists should adopt philosophy as an option to explain what experiment and methodologies fail to explain. According to these scientists, philosophy offers a logical sense of looking at things. Philosophy of science can open up new realms of reasoning for scientists. However, scientists like Feynman argue that hypotheses from philosophy lack validity. These scientists argue that there are no ways to verify them. The saddening reality is the fact that many scientists do not give these hypotheses attention. It is unfair that they refute these hypotheses without giving them considerations. Philosophy of science focuses on determining the implications of scientific models. Many scientific models in science seek to explain scientific concepts and philosophy examines the logic in these models. In other cases, philosophy formulates and draws conclusions from scientific information (Rosenberg, 2005: 54). Philosophy manages to define the scope and limitations of science. Philosophy of science introduces logic to science. In addition, philosophy of science analyzes the social impacts of scientific technologies. Technologies have negative social impacts that often go unnoticed. Many scientists do not go back to assess the impact of such technologies. Biological philosophers have been analyzing the explanations for species and the behavior of organisms. Philosophers of biology have explained the evolution theory and many logical explanations presented. Other philosophers seek to understand the coordination of behavior organisms. Philosophy combined with scientific can give an understanding of behavior in organisms. Philosophy also tries to elaborate the effects of different races on society. Genetically, human beings have different genes coding for the color of ethnicity. However, the issue of race affects the [social settings and philosophy tries to unravel these effects. In addition, philosophy of biology provides answers for explanations on the origin of life (Allhoff, 2010: 201). Biology is the scientific study of life whereas philosophy of biology explains other aspects of life. Ancient philosophers described this type of philosophy as natural. For a clear understanding of life and all aspects surrounding the behavior of organisms, science and philosophy must contribute equally. Philosophy and science have always held related issues. Since ancient scientists focused on both philosophy and science, the two fields contributed to the progress of each other. This was until Feynman declared that philosophy was of little worth to science. In addition to Feynman’s dismissal, Weinberg emerged in later years and declared that the only role philosophy played was protecting scientific views (Rosenberg, 2005:61). Some philosophers argue that it is not fair for scientists to discredit philosophy for the mere reason that it is not their field of interest. According to these philosophers, scientists should give due credit and respect to other academic fields. The fact that science relies on facts and evidence to explain the way things happen, should not make science more important than other academic fields. These philosophers argue that science is not the sole source of information. In any case, science has its limits and other academic fields can provide reliable information. According to some defenders of philosophy of science, ancient scientists did not qualify to be scientists unless they could formulate a theory. This emphasizes the importance of philosophy in earlier generations. Philosophy provided wisdom to science in those centuries. The bridging gap between science and philosophy came up in the nineteenth century. Greek philosophers remain in history as the scientists who found value in philosophy and applied it widely. The bridging gap between philosophy and science only came up in the nineteenth century. Scientists have been attacking philosophy and disputing over the essence of philosophy to science (Gauch, 2003: 89). In most cases, scientists refute, philosophical claims. The rebuttals brought forward by scientists have only made the situation worse. Philosophers argue that scientists should never use philosophy to refute philosophy. If scientists choose to underrate philosophy, they should can justify themselves with all other reasons but not philosophy itself. The fact scientists do not find a worthwhile reason to refute philosophical claims makes the relationship between philosophies of science and sciences seem so obvious. Some philosophers argue that they will not relent because scientists do not appreciate the value of philosophy of science to modern science. It is evident that the modern scientist focuses on technology. Philosophers still seek to understand what scientists are doing. It may lack importance to some scientists but to the lovers of wisdom, philosophy makes sense (Rosenberg, 2005:82). Science will provide the facts, data; information and the philosopher will formulate theories according to interpretations of the available data. The two fields may lack a direct intersection but their goals complement each other. Science seeks the truth and philosophy does so too. The basis of establishing truth is what differs and brings about all the controversy. Philosophy of science and science can interact in three different levels. Science seeks to establish new knowledge while philosophy does the same thing at a broader perspective. From the empirical presuppositions of science, philosophy can benefit greatly. The fields depend on each other although only a few scientists admit it. Science may be a reliable source for philosophers to base their knowledge on but that does not limit the value it adds to science. Epistemology is one of the philosophical fields that benefits from science. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that seeks to establish the ways through which we obtain knowledge and focuses on establishing ways of determining whether the knowledge obtained is the absolute truth. Science provides an empirical method of obtaining knowledge and epistemology analyzes the validity and reliability of scientific theories and develops a criterion for determining the realism of the theories (Rosenberg, 2005: 50). Philosophy analyzes the realism of scientific theories logically to ascertain that what they define can stand as the truth. Establishing the level of truth in scientific theories comes with its challenges that philosophers must overcome. Philosophers are finding their way out and find establishing the scope of context to which scientific theories can apply. Different people understand and apply scientific truths objectively while others apply them subjectively. Philosophy of science seeks to determine the appropriate context and gets people out of the dilemma. Philosophers realize that knowledge is only the absolute truth if its application is in the right context. Philosophy of science plays a vital role in establishing the context of scientific theories. Philosophy proves to be the wisdom with which scientific knowledge is applied. Ontology is another field that seeks to validate scientific data using logic. Ontology studies what exists in nature. Science provides highlights on objects that exist in nature and ways through which they interact. Science has been through a breakthrough to establish the different forms of order that exist in nature. From science, definitions and descriptions of objects, processes, and sates of nature have resulted (Allhoff, 2010:96). Each scientific discovery adds to the knowledge of ontology. It is clear that scientific inventions do not go hand in hand with philosophical; definitions but science contributes greatly to the understanding of nature. Evolution and the philosophical ideas that have resulted are part of what science and philosophy are doing to enhance the understanding of nature. The truth is that there are conflicting ideas about the evolution theories and claims but scientific evidence can help in discerning which of them are factual. The third level in which philosophy and science intersect is anthropology. This study establishes an understanding of the human societies, their interactions, and changes from the past and predicts the probable changes in the future. This study has been analyzing the available scientific data and comparing it with the naturalism theory in existence. Anthropology tries to establish whether science provides any information that affects transcendence. Some philosophers argue that science is not the only reliable source of information of anthropology although its contribution cannot be underrated. However, there are challenges in translating scientific evidence to apply it in the study of the changing societies. There are limitations and controversial ideas arising from different philosophers (Rosenberg, 2005:112). All the three fields of philosophy seek to merge scientific attributes and logic to explain things as they are in nature. It is evident that in both cases, there are challenges that face the merging of ideas from science and philosophy. The analysis of philosophy seeks to verify scientific data. However, sometimes scientists read criticism from this analysis (Gauch, 2003: 90) Scientists react in a way that dismisses philosophy instead of categorically reviewing their methodologies and empirical experiments. Apparently, philosophy of science does not just defend scientific theories but rather seeks to question the rationality of scientific information. Philosophy of science acts as a check for scientific claims. Science should exhibit the valuable quality of self-correction. Philosophy gives science the impetus to display this trait. Science should advance and correct the wrong assumptions and conclusions made in the past. Through its analysis, philosophy acts as a good checkpoint and offers a logical examination of the inquiry, its processes, and implications. Modern scientists refute the criticism from philosophy before assessment of any possible truth or importance. They rush to conclude that philosophy lacks a basis f or its criticism (Gauch, 2003: 89). Philosophers are not the ultimate o determinants of what truth is but serve to validate the results of science. It is rational for scientific inquiry to receive a logical examination because it must add up in the context it applies. Taking scientific data as final without analysis is not justice to the human race. Both scientists and philosophers are in the search for the absolute truth and they should compare opinions and counter verify ideas. The fact philosophy lacks empirical evidence does not mean it deserves the dismissal it receives. The two fields can complement each other. Philosophy can complement scientific data by providing logic and defining the right context. Scientific breakthroughs act as materials for digestion for philosophers. In defense, scientists argue that philosophers take scientific information, theories and data ton apply to contexts in which they do not fit. Philosophers should interpret scientific information and apply it in the right context (Gauch, 2003: 89). Philosophers exaggerate some data and their interpretations dilute the essence of scientific inquiry making it lose its validity. Scientists underrate the validity of philosophy because it segments and fragments scientific information and apply it diversely. Therefore, philosophy of science should interpret scientific information as a whole and limit the interpretation to the right context. Philosophers of science consider a direct way of looking at science and choose to do it indirectly in other circumstances. In both cases, the philosophers have two goals in mind. They seek to analyze scientific o-information pragmatically and epistemologically. The pragmatic goal requires the philosopher to analyze scientific work thoroughly, establishing any form of scrutiny, presuppositions, and points of doubt (Allhoff, 2010:135). In addition, the analysis serves to clear up pre-existing controversies and give fine definitions of scientific theories. Philosophers should realize that scientists are out to explore the world and establish the truth. Philosophers should appreciate the effort made by scientists to verify and correct their work before release. The work may not be perfect even after all this but they make a move towards establishing the absolute truth. Instead of exaggerating the errors in the work of scientists, philosophers should find value in the ideas presented because they give a direction towards the truth. Some philosophers view science as a continuous practice of trial and error. Philosophers of this nature do not find any logic in scientific theories because they are subject to dismissal as false after research. Philosophers should realize that some of the main scientific breakthroughs resulted from such trial and error techniques. The results of one trial and error experiment give rise to a more defined hypothesis. From the roles of philosophy described above, philosophy means much more to the scientist than ornithology is to birds. Philosophy contributes greatly to science. Feynman’s analogy underrates the importance of philosophy of science. Philosophy of science remains a voice that analyzes and criticizes scientific data and methodologies. In the current era of rigorous scientific breakthroughs, philosophy lags behind by science. Science is moving too fast and philosopher’s needle to catch up with the current issues in science (Allhoff, 2010:173). Philosophy still concentrates on elaborating the evolution theory, an issue that the scientists seem to have pushed aside. Scientists are manipulating organisms for commercial application in a new era of genetically modifying organisms. The philosophers are still bringing forward controversial ideas concerning adaptations of organisms to environment and lifestyle while the scientists are busy manipulating genes responsible for such traits to increase production in agriculture and biotechnology For the philosophy of science to mean more to the scientist, philosophers need to move from traditional philosophy to modern philosophy. Research in biotechnology is vibrant and the field is growing too fast. The philosophers should work on validating the current work because it is clear that science has been enhancing itself and there is a lot of new knowledge circulating. Currently, science has a closer relationship with technology than philosophy. As science draws closer to technology, the gap between science and philosophy widens. Feynman‘s analogy may turn out to reality in the near future. Despite philosophers lagging behind scientists, they have done amazing analysis and logical examination of some scientific information and have been adding sense and understanding to previous knowledge. In the case of evolution theory, both scientists and philosophers have worked hand in hand to produce the current understanding on the evolution of species (Allhoff, 2010: 202). Philosophers have had ken interest in this theory as it offers insights on ontology, which is a branch of philosophy. Therefore, a close analysis of scientific discoveries and understanding that can offer explanations to a clear understanding of the theory; has been the focus of philosophers. Evolution theory had its limitations from the onset. Scientists embarked on establishing the truth and seeking any form of evidence to support or refute the theory (Lange, 2007: 342). Describing the structure of DNA gave the scientists the right momentum to carry out research that could provide a moire detailed structure of DNA (Ayala and Arp, 2009: 196). Currently, scientists have managed to sequence entire genomes of several organisms (Ayala and Arp, 2009: 195). After sequencing, it has been possible for them to determine the function and regulation of gene expression and resulting traits. In addition, gene-mapping techniques established by scientific methods have helped in the understanding of gene linkage. This is the knowledge that philosophers have been analyzing and applying it logically to the claims of evolution theory (Lange, 2007: 339). Understanding gene function and expression ahs helped philosophers define selection as used in the evolution theory. Philosophy of biology has been defining the scope of context that such understanding can apply logically. Philosophers of science have successfully used such data from science to describe be the process of selective inheritance of genes during reproduction. The selective inheritance of genes leads to traits that can cope with changing environmental conditions. Philosophers have drawn other conclusions and raised new controversies about the evolution theory. Philosophers succeeded in defining the basic unit of evolution from Mendel’s description of the allele. This understanding led to the reduction theory when definition of the allele took a central role in evolution. Evolution is one of the main fields that philosophy of biology handles in detail (Lange, 2007: 338). It is a classical example of the contribution of philosophy to science. In addition, philosophy of biology logically examines molecular genetics, conservation biology, evolution, and developmental biology. Philosophy plays a major role in defining the context of many of discoveries in genetics. Genetics studies and molecular biology have provided the philosopher with new information that enhances the pre-existing knowledge. Philosophy of biology has been yielding many philosophical writings that expose the current controversies and concerns, presuppositions and conclusions drawn from the available information. These writings have prompted scientists to embark on intensive research to provide new evidences to resolve the arising concerns. The developments in biology and the contribution of the biological philosophers illustrate the complement system between science and its philosophy. An analysis of the progressive work from both fields implies that science does more than defend scientific theories. Philosophers of physics have been working relentlessly to define the modern understanding of quantum theory. Chemistry philosophers have made attributes to the development of the field. Scientists may choose to underrate what philosophy of science does and refute their claims as they have done before. However, they should realize that in the era of advancing technologies and plenty of new information, healthy criticism from philosophy and its logic can serve to heighten the level of scientific breakthroughs (Gauch, 2003: 91). Philosophy exposes the limitations of scientific procedures in use and the weaknesses of models used in science and if taken well, it can lead to the development of better models and a better science in the future. Upcoming scientists should give philosophy of science a consideration. Experts argue that understanding the philosophy of science makes an individual more open-minded. Students who understand the basics of philosophy of their field of interest are likely to become more competitive in the practice of science. Philosophy offers the theoretical aspect of a science and gives a logical history of the science of interest. A student who gets an opportunity to understand the basics and logics of a science will address issues on a broader perspective. An introduction to philosophy will sharpen the critical and creative skills of a scientist and this will enable scientists of the future to formulate hypotheses that are more specific. Practicing scientists should give some credit to philosophy. It is rational for them to analyze the philosophical claims resulting from their work before refutation. They should weigh out the claims and seek to understand the logical explanations put forward by philosophers. On the other hand, philosophers should apply scientific information to the right context and avoid bringing up unnecessary controversies. Philosophers should realize that even scientists are out to establish the absolute truth. Science and philosophy are two academic fields that seek to establish new knowledge and validate it to pass for the truth. Philosophy does the bigger part of validation and considers empirical; science as a source of information. Some scientists in the past have given philosophy a dismissal because of its lack of substantial evidence. A clear understanding of the two fields will help an individual realize the worth and role of philosophy. The two fields gather knowledge and qualify it as truth using different methods. Scientists should not expect philosophers to dwell on empirical calculations because philosophy as a field uses rationality and logic (Gauch, 2003: 102). On the other hand, science must use experiments and empirical data to ascertain its findings. The two fields may incline on the same issues but they tackle them differently. Philosophy of science plays a bigger role than Feynman claimed. Some critics argue that he contributed to physical philosophy although he did not acknowledge it. Feynman and his supporters overlooked the importance of philosophy. Underrating philosophy lacks justification because a close examination of its role indicates that it contributes greatly to science. The example of the contributions of philosophy of biology is an illustration that philosophy of science and science can complement each other. Philosophy serves to explain scientific theories, determine their right context, and analyze them critically to raise points of doubts or identify weaknesses in scientific models. Experts in both fields should regard the different fields with respect. Scientists should not behave as if it dominates the search for information. This does not mean that science should lose its respect and credit for providing evidence. Science is very vital as a source of data. Philosophy of science is vital but on a different basis and sense. In my opinion, Feynman’s analogy is not true according to the evidence traced from past contributions of philosophy to science. However, philosophy should catch up with the fast pace of science. Bibliography Allhoff, F. 2010. Philosophies of the Sciences: A Guide. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Ayala, J. F. and Arp, R. 2009. Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Gauch, G. H. 2003. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lange, M. 2007. Philosophy of science: an anthology. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell. Rosenberg, A. 2005. Philosophy of science: a contemporary introduction. London: Routledge. Read More