It would seem that scientific knowledge is the savior of mankind from superstitions, unverified assumptions in religions, intellectual terrorism emanating from dogmatic assertions etc. that restrict and even destroy human creativity and freedom inherent in human nature. Does this picture of scientific knowledge and its capabilities square with actual facts? It is true that scientific and technological progress have been able to get rid of many superstitions, prejudices and false beliefs that have ruled humankind for centuries. In this field, Philosophy has done great services in eradicating false notions, beliefs and styles of life that were unbecoming for the dignity of human beings even before the sciences emerged on the scene. For, it was Philosophy that prepared the way for empirical sciences and the consequent technological inventions that contributed to the welfare of humanity in no small measure as the history of human thought reveals. By empirical sciences we mean the sciences like Physics, Chemistry, Biology and all other sciences excluding Philosophy, Mathematics, Logic etc.
We must see the connection between Philosophy and the empirical sciences in the following way. Historically speaking, Western Philosophy started in ancient Greece as the first response to the wonder the humans felt in their everyday life. All sciences gradually emerged from the first principles of rationality propounded by Philosophy and were gradually weaned away. What were these first principles that helped humanity to acquire, accumulate and utilize the knowledge gained therefrom? The Principle of Identity that identifies a thing from other things; The Principle of Contradiction or non-Contradiction that helps to avoid contradiction; The Principle of Sufficient Reason that demands a reason for everything. The reason can be either in itself or outside itself; if it is the former, it is akin to the Principle of Identity where one doesn't have to look for a reason outside itself. If it is the latter, it is called the Principle of Causality, which is the main Principle used by empirical sciences in all their investigations.
However, at present neither Philosophy nor the empirical sciences can claim any primacy as their roles have become distinct and independent of one another. They need not be bothered about any primacy as both have their roles clearly marked out. Let the empirical sciences advance hypotheses, theories etc. and try to prove them and bring out the essences of things by means of verifiable evidences. Philosophy in its proper role is not interested in them as its proper role is to clarify concepts, not only in Philosophy but also in empirical sciences. This role of Philosophy in clarifying even scientific concepts frees them from unmanageable knots they have got into thinking that they were plumbing the depths of reality! This is done by presenting the relevant concepts in a perspicuous manner and solving genuine problems as well as dissolving pseudo-problems.
In this connection, let us not fall into the temptation of attacking the normal form of expression as if attacking a statement, a pitfall the Idealists, the Solipsists and the realists fell into. The conflict is between a picture in our heads and the picture of our ordinary way of speaking. We would like to think that our ordinary way of speaking does not describe the facts as they are. As if, for example, the proposition "he has pains" could be false in some other way than by that man's 'not' having pains. As if the form of expression were saying something false even when the proposition 'faute de mieux' asserted something true. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph, 402). It means that we should avoid the confusion arising out of our way of speaking with what we want to express by it as happened to the philosophical thinking of the Idealists, Solipsists and the Realists. The same problem may arise in the empirical sciences whereby the scientists may consider our ordinary language as below standard and unworthy of their attention. Of course, the scientists have their special languages couched in mathematical formulas, theorems etc. and that is the specialty of their investigations. However, they cannot totally escape our everyday ordinary language that stands as the base from which their investigations have taken them to higher zones. Ultimately they have to come down to the ordinary language to verify the meaningfulness of their expressions on pain of being meaningless otherwise. We shall see in the next Post how the method of investigation of the empirical sciences is restrictive and cannot claim overall dominion over the kingdom of knowledge.
We must see the connection between Philosophy and the empirical sciences in the following way. Historically speaking, Western Philosophy started in ancient Greece as the first response to the wonder the humans felt in their everyday life. All sciences gradually emerged from the first principles of rationality propounded by Philosophy and were gradually weaned away. What were these first principles that helped humanity to acquire, accumulate and utilize the knowledge gained therefrom? The Principle of Identity that identifies a thing from other things; The Principle of Contradiction or non-Contradiction that helps to avoid contradiction; The Principle of Sufficient Reason that demands a reason for everything. The reason can be either in itself or outside itself; if it is the former, it is akin to the Principle of Identity where one doesn't have to look for a reason outside itself. If it is the latter, it is called the Principle of Causality, which is the main Principle used by empirical sciences in all their investigations.
However, at present neither Philosophy nor the empirical sciences can claim any primacy as their roles have become distinct and independent of one another. They need not be bothered about any primacy as both have their roles clearly marked out. Let the empirical sciences advance hypotheses, theories etc. and try to prove them and bring out the essences of things by means of verifiable evidences. Philosophy in its proper role is not interested in them as its proper role is to clarify concepts, not only in Philosophy but also in empirical sciences. This role of Philosophy in clarifying even scientific concepts frees them from unmanageable knots they have got into thinking that they were plumbing the depths of reality! This is done by presenting the relevant concepts in a perspicuous manner and solving genuine problems as well as dissolving pseudo-problems.
In this connection, let us not fall into the temptation of attacking the normal form of expression as if attacking a statement, a pitfall the Idealists, the Solipsists and the realists fell into. The conflict is between a picture in our heads and the picture of our ordinary way of speaking. We would like to think that our ordinary way of speaking does not describe the facts as they are. As if, for example, the proposition "he has pains" could be false in some other way than by that man's 'not' having pains. As if the form of expression were saying something false even when the proposition 'faute de mieux' asserted something true. (Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, paragraph, 402). It means that we should avoid the confusion arising out of our way of speaking with what we want to express by it as happened to the philosophical thinking of the Idealists, Solipsists and the Realists. The same problem may arise in the empirical sciences whereby the scientists may consider our ordinary language as below standard and unworthy of their attention. Of course, the scientists have their special languages couched in mathematical formulas, theorems etc. and that is the specialty of their investigations. However, they cannot totally escape our everyday ordinary language that stands as the base from which their investigations have taken them to higher zones. Ultimately they have to come down to the ordinary language to verify the meaningfulness of their expressions on pain of being meaningless otherwise. We shall see in the next Post how the method of investigation of the empirical sciences is restrictive and cannot claim overall dominion over the kingdom of knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment