Science and Philosophy: Are They So Different?

Any expression, headline, or news containing the word scientific is often awarded high authority within mainstream media and the community. It is thought that the use of the scientific method for the pursuit of an investigation guarantees its validity and reliability. However, are we certain of the objectivity of scientific discoveries? And what is it in the scientific method that makes it so clearly reliable? Arguably, philosophy could provide valid insight into scientific matters and reveal that the two disciplines are incredibly intertwined and co-dependent.

If a product is said to be scientifically tested or a theory is defined as scientifically proven, it immediately gains further value and attention in comparison to other products and theories of the same kind. However, do we have any basis to hold science to such a high stance?  Science is renowned for its incredible success in making valuable predictions and discoveries and for the reliability of its method known as the scientific method.

The scientific method consists of observing a phenomenon in the world, developing one or more hypotheses that could explain the functioning and behaviour of the observed phenomenon, designing experiments and tests to verify which, if any, of the hypotheses is accurate, revising the hypotheses as needed and repeating the procedure until the nature of the phenomenon is explained adequately.

The method appears straightforward and likely to be successful. While it requires skills in making insightful hypotheses, developing appropriate experiments, and performing them accurately, it seems that if one is careful with all the steps and pays the required attention to their work, the outcome would be rewarding.

Does The Scientific Method Always Work?

Imagine wanting to investigate why all objects, once released into the air, fall downwards until they reach the closest surface. After having observed the phenomenon and its frequency, you would develop a hypothesis of why this is the case and test it through experiments until you reach a satisfactory explanation, i.e., Newton’s law of universal gravitation.

During the experimental phase, imagine testing exactly Newton’s law of universal gravitation and realizing it is unable to explain the phenomenon you are attempting to describe. Now, as a scientist, you could declare that Newton’s law is to be disposed of, as it has been disproven. However, you could also argue that some equipment used for the experiment was faulty, that a mistake was made within the procedure, or that the experiment was simply inaccurately developed to test for the law.

Something of this sort happened in 2011 at the Gran Sasso Research Centre in Italy. There, a group of scientists seems to have disproven Einstein’s renowned law of relativity, which states that nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum.

Contrastingly, during the experiments carried out at the Gran Sasso Research Centre, scientists have reported that some subatomic particles called neutrinos have been recorded as traveling faster than light, disproving the highly cherished Einsteinian law. In this particular instance, as in the fictional example above, the law has not been disposed of, but rather, it has been assumed that the error is to be attributed to some other aspect of the experimentation – the development of an inappropriate test, an inaccurate execution of some of its steps, or a faulty piece of equipment.

The two examples in the paragraph above clarify that not even the use of the scientific method guarantees fully accurate predictions and, that questions can be posed, and mistakes can be made even concerning the most widely accepted and successful theories developed by the most renowned scientists. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell provocatively argues in his text “Marriage and Morals,” “The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”

Hence, even within what is labeled as scientifically proven, there is always space for debate and a need to keep investigating and finding compelling evidence to redefine hypotheses, theories, and laws.

However, having established that the use of the scientific method does not guarantee absolute certain outcomes in scientific research, its overall success in making predictions and proving and disproving theories remains unshaken. Shedding light on its problems is not meant to discourage one from using it, but rather destigmatising its absolute validity and avoiding losing sight of the fact that, while the predictions it makes tend to be accurate, every hypothesis, law or theory remains open for verification and revision at all times, no matter how certain it may appear.

History of Science and Philosophy 

The problems concerning the scientific method represent aspects where philosophy could provide a powerful insight into science. Originally, philosophy and science worked collaboratively as a single discipline, and until recently, the most prominent philosophers happened to have a background in sciences such as Physics or Mathematics.

The Ancient Greeks, and famously Aristotle, conceived the realm of knowledge as a single entity, where science and philosophy used to operate through similar systems towards the achievement of epistemic enlightenment. As a result of this, sciences that nowadays we call Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Anthropology—just to name a few—used to be known under the umbrella of Natural Philosophy.

Nowadays, however, science and philosophy appear as clearly distinct disciplines and are thought of as having very little to do with one another. Not many philosophers receive training in Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry, but rather Philosophy is associated with Arts and Humanities, and often paired with subjects like Literature, History or Classical Studies.  Hence, the conception of Philosophy that we have developed in modern times is antithetical to the role that the discipline has historically played within the realm of knowledge.

However, the association between philosophy and science is rooted in the nature of the two disciplines. For this reason, it is detrimental to understand the way they contribute to one another and to view them as incredibly intertwined. The discipline of Philosophy of Science has focused in-depth on the relationship between the two subjects. It has investigated what distinguishes them, what they have in common, and the way each of them provides an insight into the other. Given the commonality of their goals, it is clearly counterproductive to analyze the two disciplines in isolation, despite the modern trend that pushes one to do so.

In the previous sections, we have expounded that the authority conferred to science is often associated with the high success rate of its predictions, which is often attributed to the use of the scientific method. Philosophical knowledge, on the other hand, does not enjoy the same elevated status, and the reason for this might be the use of different methods of inquiry, but also the heavy debates and disagreements internal to the discipline and the overall lack of universally recognized findings. However, there exist philosophical problems that have – or have the potential to – draw limits to scientific research or challenge some of the aspects of the scientific method.

For example, the problem of induction, first introduced by the philosopher David Hume, has presented real concerns for science. Multiple intellectuals and academics—such as the philosopher of science Karl Popper—have dedicated their lives to the quest of conciliating the use of inductive reasoning with the scientific method. The problem of induction states that one ought not to rely on claims that generalize over several individual and independent observations.

In other words, observing multiple instances of the same phenomenon – such as a tennis ball falling downwards to the nearest surface once released, would not allow one to make a general claim about the phenomenon, such as that all objects, once released, fall downwards to the nearest surface where they can rest.

According to Hume, the fact that this has always been the case so far does not guarantee that it will always be the case in the future. Due to the problem of induction, claims derived from inductive reasoning are always uncertain and cannot be relied upon; given that the scientific method relies mostly on inductive reasoning, the problem of induction puts at stake all of its findings.

As outlined in the above paragraph, philosophy, better than any other discipline, can identify fallacies in scientific methodologies that would put science at risk of making predictions based on ungrounded claims. At the same time, philosophy is also the discipline that could offer powerful insights into solutions to such problems.

The renowned scientist Albert Einstein claimed to “Fully agree […] about the significance and educational value of […] history and philosophy of science. So many people today – and even professionals – seem […] like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. Knowledge of the historical and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from the prejudices of [their] generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is […] the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”

In other words, while scientists may hold profound and insightful knowledge of the issues they are investigating, they may lack the understanding of the whole framework of knowledge, that only philosophical enquiry could provide. Hence, philosophy and science would operate much more successfully as allies, rather than knowledge seekers travelling on separate roads.

While science would have specific sectorial knowledge of practical matters, philosophy would hold together the big picture of the methodology of research and inquiry. Philosophy could then reestablish its original authority, on the one hand, by responding to the needs of science in creating the best possible investigative method for each discipline and, on the other, by spotting fallacies ensuring the accuracy of the knowledge obtained by science.