Why scientists usually hate philosophy — or believe they do
What would you say if I told you that part of my job consists in teaching philosophy of science to science students? I can easily guess. If you’re a typical science student or scientist, you may say that I have a horrible job, that I teach something that doesn’t serve any purpose.
And, what if I told you that I am paid to teach about something that scientists like Newton practiced, a discipline prominently practiced by physicists? Well, some people might even think that I am referring to a different job this time, but I am not. As you may know, some of the most famous philosophers of science, like Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn or Mario Bunge were physicists. From experience, I know that some might believe that “if they liked and practiced philosophy, they were not real scientists.” But what if I told you that real scientists usually philosophize as a normal part of their job, even though they are not usually aware of it?
Some time ago I had a peculiar and revealing experience. A scientist that had told me they didn’t like the philosophy of science noticed my book What Is This Thing Called Science? authored by the physicist Alan Chalmers, and said “I have this book myself! It’s so good! I liked it a lot”. Well, it turns out this book is, from beginning to end, about the philosophy of science… It just doesn’t admit this in the title.
So, why do scientists usually hate philosophy? There are many lengthy answers to this question, but here’s a short one: in most cases, scientists don’t have a clue about what philosophy really is. Such scientists hate something — or rather believe they do — without deeply understanding what the object of their hatred is, and without being aware that they sometimes practice it unknowingly and blindly. For instance, when they decide to support one of several competing scientific theories or to adhere to one of several competing theoretical “sides” of a specific science, all of them logically coherent and supported by empirical evidence, in an area where consensus hasn’t been reached, they are taking considerations that are extra-scientific and rather philosophical, even if they aren’t necessarily familiar with the “official” terms and labels that their position receives within academic philosophy. When they define or understand causality in one of several possible ways, they are also philosophizing. They usually also ignore how much science, as they know it, owes to Philosophy. Actually the famous “scientific method”, a label usually given to the hypothetical deductive method, so highly regarded within science, was conceived within the philosophy of science.
Now, if I told you that I am paid to open minds, to fight the kind of arrogance that comes from ignorance, to promote the tolerance that comes from understanding that there is no perfect method (not even the so called “scientific method”) capable of leading us to an absolutely superior knowledge system (not even the prestigious science) and even less to absolute truths about the universe, you know what would most likely happen? Typical science students would still say that I have a horrible job, because I teach things that are useless. And that’s worrying. In a multicultural world, it is very worrying. Some have actually told me that I’m mistaken when asserting that science isn’t the ultimate superior knowledge system; they have told me that it’s quite obvious that I’m wrong: just take a look at man-made satellites, and how they actually behave as science expects them to, just to mention one of millions of possible examples. And oh, given these remarks, it’s evident that there was a misunderstanding then! I never stated that science was not better than other knowledge systems: I asserted that it’s not absolutely better. Because there’s a little something we should add if we say that science is “better”: most of the time we don’t think of specifying what it is better for. We can’t possibly deny how accurately science predicts the “material” effects of “material” causes. And therefore, how effective science is in allowing us to control and modify the material world as we see fit. So please don’t believe this article opposes science (in any event, it opposes scientism, the view that no other approach or method than the scientific ones is valid to obtain any sort of knowledge). Let’s just look at the important, literally vital, role that science is playing during this pandemic. To be clear: I am not denying the huge value, importance and merit of science. As I stated, it is evident that science is an excellent way to understand and to manipulate material reality as we see fit. But is this all that we all want? Are other goals, like finding more humility, or more tolerance, or being more ethical, totally useless simply because they are not strictly necessary to understand, predict, control and modify our material surroundings? This leads us to a second reason why scientists usually hate philosophy: We ended up living in a world where we easily belittle what doesn’t directly lead to literally “palpable”, “tangible”, material innovations.
What about other values and goals shared by millions of human beings, like being deeply happy, establishing powerful loving bonds, or having a more peaceful world? What about other values and goals linked to beliefs beyond the realm in which science can empirically test facts? Desires like reversing the atrophy of intuition, growing a stronger faith in God or developing a more powerful relationship with the spiritual realm, in the case of believers? The history of science itself demonstrates that the mere fact that science hasn’t discovered or detected some part of reality doesn’t necessarily mean that this part of reality doesn’t exist. There was a time in which electrons, exoplanets, UV rays, infrared radiation or relativity didn’t exist in science. Therefore, are we so arrogant to state that beyond the scientific knowledge system, all beliefs are necessarily false, or at least irrelevant and inferior? Once I was explaining scientism to a group of students, and I mentioned how, in an extreme form, it can even deny that something exists simply because science has no proof for it (nor disproof against it). A mathematics or physics student (I can’t remember which) reflected and expressed a sad and ironic thing: “That is not logical”. I totally agree.
Philosophical thinking helps us gain perspective on everything, including science. It helps us situate it, recognize its limits, its frontiers. As stated earlier, it can help us gain humility and tolerance. If you told me that this is “useless”, it would only strengthen my position that we urgently need to practice philosophical thinking even more.
