4 ms·

I think in the general sense, any "contributions of philosophy or philosophy of science to actual science" would end up being science, not philosophy. Consider

I think in the general sense, any "contributions of philosophy or philosophy of science to actual science" would end up being science, not philosophy. Consider the different interpretations of quantum mechanics -- in an earlier age these sorts of discussions would fall under the rubric of natural philosophy. However, nowadays these theoretical and experimental discussions are properly conducted within the sphere of physics. So to look for direct contributions of philosophy to science is to commit a kind of category mistake, since science is a self-correcting model based on experimental verification of theory. Anything that can be verified (well, more pointedly, falsified) through experimentation is within the domain of science -- it is science. Anything that can't really be falsified through experimentation doesn't really have a place within the scientific framework. Now, it takes a philosophy of science to make this separation of non-science from science, so that's at least one indirect contribution anyway.

anythinggoes 14y ago
I am afraid you are simplifying the scientific progress quite a bit with "we have a model, then we look for empiric data and if there is conclusive evidence we can conclude that the model matches reality". It has been shown by many historians (e.g. Thomas Kuhn) that in reality scientists do not just follow these guidelines and in many cases scientific models use assumptions that cannot be verified or falsified, nor would it make sense to adhere to such strict rules. If you are interested in this topic I also recommend the discussion of Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend, which has been a very important contribution to how we now think about scientific progress. Hence I tend to disagree with you and in fact you could probably say that many of the theoretical discussions you find in Physics (such as Quantum Mechanics) can be seen as being actually closer to Philosophical debate.
- empthought 14y ago
  I admit to simplifying a bit, but I don't think the sociological turn in the philosophy of science is relevant to the original question. The point is that scientific propositions are evaluated based on their predictive success in observations. The propositions of philosophy are not intended to be predictive statements about experimental outcomes, which is why the original poster did not see how philosophy contributes to science.

anythinggoes 14y ago

I am afraid you are simplifying the scientific progress quite a bit with "we have a model, then we look for empiric data and if there is conclusive evidence we can conclude that the model matches reality". It has been shown by many historians (e.g. Thomas Kuhn) that in reality scientists do not just follow these guidelines and in many cases scientific models use assumptions that cannot be verified or falsified, nor would it make sense to adhere to such strict rules. If you are interested in this topic I also recommend the discussion of Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend, which has been a very important contribution to how we now think about scientific progress. Hence I tend to disagree with you and in fact you could probably say that many of the theoretical discussions you find in Physics (such as Quantum Mechanics) can be seen as being actually closer to Philosophical debate.

empthought 14y ago
I admit to simplifying a bit, but I don't think the sociological turn in the philosophy of science is relevant to the original question. The point is that scientific propositions are evaluated based on their predictive success in observations. The propositions of philosophy are not intended to be predictive statements about experimental outcomes, which is why the original poster did not see how philosophy contributes to science.