Question about Science, Philosophy (Oliver Leaman responds): There's an article in The New Yorker this week (Feb. 12) about two philosophers-turned-scientists who, in the course of their studies, developed a strong distaste for the philosophical way of things (one of them bashes Thomas Nagel's bat thought-experiment as an incompetent way to approach the mind-body problem).
Is it true, as the article asserts, that philosophy is continually ceding its territory to the sciences (philosophy of the mind may be rendered obsolete by neuroscience), so that less and less is left to philosophers over time? Could science make philosophy obsolete?
Response from Oliver Leaman on February 15, 2007
I don't think so, although this is often claimed. The links between philosophy and science are complex and easy to get wrong. Philosophers are not looking for answers to problems in the same way that scientists are, although the difference is quite subtle. With the mind-body problem, whatever scientific developments on this occur, the issue of how to best characterize the relationship remains a conceptual problem, and no scientific discovery would force the philosopher's hand to come down on one approach or another.
________________________________________________________________________
This was from AskPhilosophers.org and I found it to be an intriguing. What is the relationship between philosophy and science? Is there one. Mr. Leaman indicates that there is but that it is complex. I’m not sure I agree. Although the definition of philosophy is itself a great philosophical question, most would agree that it involves reasoning, debate, and critical thought but rarely can produce physical evidence to support its arguments. I think most would agree that science involves both theory and physical evidence to support or prove the theory, not just the theory.
Now to be fair, Mr. Leaman did not call philosophy a science, only stating that there is a relationship between the two. This would, it seems, suggest that philosophy sort of takes care of the things that can not be proven by science. A great example would be the fact that the human animal kills for enjoyment. Science can’t (not yet anyway) offer evidence as to why we do that but philosophy can certainly offer theories on the subject. So if philosophy does take care of the nonscientific realm of the universe the how is it different than religion? I know this too is a great philosophical debate but I fail to see the difference. To say that philosophy isn’t religion because it does not have a supreme being controlling the universe doesn’t cut it in my eyes. It only shows that philosophy fails to make the next leap and explain the unexplainable with a god. Perhaps that is the definition of religion, philosophy with an answer. Even if it can’t be proven.
