HomeAnswerNotificationsCustomize Feeds
What is the true relationship between philosophy and science?

 Science and philosophy come together in a really exciting discipline: 


It is a field of philosophy whose subject of study is access to knowledge and the construction of knowledge. It involves both the history of science and reflection on what a truth is, the role of perception vis-à-vs reality, the validity of reasoning, ... crowds of exciting questions fall into its field of study.

In particular, this philosophical discipline defines what sciences are and especially what they are not. More specifically, and contrary to what many seem to believe, the sciences do not claim to define ALL that is true (notion of completeness: there are still unanswered questions, and one of the roles of science is to provide these questions). They do not even claim to define what is true (notion of accuracy: there are known flaws in some models).

 Let us leave aside the mathematics and logic that constitute a full-fledged field of epistemology, to the extent that their connection to reality is the subject of discussion that eludes the question posed here (and to be honest, I do not do not master this subject enough). The rest of the sciences are content to collect facts by observation, and to propose plausible explanations for these facts. A plausible theory will be accepted, by consensus, as an explanatory model, until a new observation comes to contradict its predictions: it will then be necessary to revise the explanatory model so that it adapts in order to describe properly all the obsevations . Or failing that, we will set the limits of the model. Science is therefore revisionist by nature and can not therefore claim to define the truth (an important nuance for skeptics: it can perfectly characterize what is false, on the other hand, and it would be wrong to deprive oneself of torpedoing fallacious theories)! It is only intended to provide an explanation sufficiently convincing to work on predictions or confirmations. 

 In summary: science seeks to explain, philosophy looks at the role of the scientific approach in accessing truth and reality. And that is complementarity! 


i cant bear in mind the exact author that said that "the goal of phlosophy is to get rid of the intellectual litter from science”

basically, science follows a way of look for information supported antecedently assumed premisses - these don't seem to be dogmas nor axioms, however they have to function base for any investigation. However, once the premises get previous and now not acceptable and compatible with current information, they have to be examined and re-evaluated

when science, thanks to numerous reasons, refuses to run a check on previous assumptions, {scientific information|knowledge domain|knowledge base} becomes plagued with what the greeks known as “doxa” - sense knowledge, that isnt delayed for abundant discussion or logical verification - this will lead science into a nasty place

science strives to accumulate information, as in, understanding - it's its own methodology, sometimes one that bases its experimentation on antecedently discovered principles; philosophy will be accustomed “run a check” on those principles used as basis for investigation, so as to forestall science from proscribing itself by basing its search on out-of-date and careless ideas that don't fall in accordance with the trendy perspective


Science tries to answer the questions "What" and "How"

Philosophy tries to answer the question "Why"

So we need both of them to get a more clear overview.