The strange relationship between science and philosophy
Stereotypes in Scientific Thought
Unedited 1/2/11
From www.evolutionaryethics.com The Evolution of Ethics: An Introduction to Cybernetic Ethics
The word philosophy has its origins in Greek times meaning love of wisdom. It become known as "first science." As pure science has distanced itself from its early roots in philosophy it has sometimes looked back at philosophy as nothing more than elegant nonsense. Revisionary metaphysics, a small branch of philosophy, has had much to do with this stereotypical view of philosophy. Here, on the creative ground of philosophical thinking, wild and speculative ideas have been proposed and analyzed. Focusing on the language of reversionary metaphysics scientists have subsequently come to scorn philosophy as second rate thinking. This misunderstanding is best exemplified in a recent television production on "The Elegant Universe," a documentary on quantum mechanics and string theory. Here, the idea is repeatedly emphasized that "philosophy is safe, it cannot be check up on.". Such an idea reinforces and perpetuates a myth of a very rational discipline grounded in the pursuit of wisdom. This cultural and academic disparity between science and philosophy needs some explaining since cybernetic ethics straddles the chasm between the two worlds. From first science was later born pure science. But, from pure science there has emerged quantum physics. It is here that pure science appears to merge again with philosophy at the same time philosophy merges with science in the form of cybernetic ethics. It is interesting to note that one of the major obstructions to a credible theory of evolutionary ethics has been metaphysics which stresses an analysis of the language rather than on facts and experience to arrive at a logical conclusion. In quantum physics reason natural phenomena but they can no longer verify it precisely as they can when working with the laws of Newtonian physics. There is a middle ground in science where reason and observation can produce reliable theory. This as true for quantum mechanics as it is for cybernetic ethics.
Scientists view the validity of a theory in terms of its preciseness and verifiability. Philosophers view the validity of a theory in terms of its reasonableness—not its exactness. A philosophical proposition must integrate well into a whole galaxy of other ides considered credible. The idea of what is reasonable or what is not is a perspective that has evolved with considerable effort over many years of rational inquiry. Philosophy might be likened to a virtual garden of ideas with logic ladders, conceptual bridges and wandering pathways in thinking constructed over thousands of years.
To say that "philosophy is safe, because it cannot be checked up on" is a bad argument for at least three reasons. Philosophy is the word not the thing. When symbol and substance are confused logic and reason is lost and meaningless arguments endure. Philosophy is the symbol of something, not its substance. Philosophy is a rather nebulous discipline. If one is to generalize at all about philosophy it is helpful to go back to the Greek roots of philosophy. Metaphysics can sometimes be thought of as elegant nonsense. This may be true in some instances, but it ignores the more important role of metaethics in stimulating the mind. Metaphysics might be likened to the conceptual artists paint pallet. Here the artist is free to do what ever the wish without fear of harsh intellectual reproach. It is, in a sense, the creative ground of ideas. Its intent may or may not be intended to be accurate. What is ultimately important is that the ideas it produce inspire progress in philosophical thinking. Metaphysics is in a world of its own, basing its reasoning system on words and not facts, experience and science. One way or the other they cannot lose. Either way metaphysics teaches or it inspires thinking to evolve. Metaphysics can sometimes be thought of as elegant nonsense. This may be true in some instances, but it ignores the more important role of metaethics in stimulating the mind. Metaphysics might be likened to the conceptual artists paint pallet. Here the artist is free to do what ever the wish without fear of harsh intellectual reproach. It is, in a sense, the creative ground of ideas. Its intent may or may not be intended to be accurate. What is ultimately important is that the ideas it produce inspire progress in philosophical thinking. Metaphysics is in a world of its own, basing its reasoning system on words and not facts, experience and science. One way or the other they cannot lose. Either way metaphysics teaches or it inspires thinking to evolve. Certainly then we have a problem here if scientists are pursuing the mass of an atom while philosophers are involved in the pursuit of wisdom. As linguist S. I. Hayakawa has often said "The symbol is not the thing symbolized; the map is not the territory; the word is not the thing."* Another way of looking at the assertion that philosophy is safe is to point out that philosophy employed in this proposition in an "intensional" sense. Words have extensional or intensional qualities. Intensional meanings do not point to anything in the physical world. Arguments that are intensionally framed "can and do, go on indefinitely without resolve." Scientists not only have failed to frame their arguments in an tangible, extensional way but they continue to confuse philosophy with metaphysics. Metaphysics can sometimes be thought of as elegant nonsense. This may be true in some instances, but it ignores the more important role of metaethics in stimulating the mind. Metaphysics might be likened to the conceptual artists paint pallet. Here the competent artist is free to do what ever he or she wishes, given certain parameters in reasoning. Metaphysics is the creative ground of ideas. Its intent is not always to be true and accurate.What is ultimately important is that the ideas it produce inspire progress in philosophical thinking. Metaphysics is in a world of its own, basing its reasoning system on words and not facts, experience and science. While metaphysics may not be fully in touch with the world it does inspire thinking to evolve.
On the other hand many kinds of scientific information can be quickly verified in science for its accuracy. Simply because one method of reasoning takes more time than the other does not impinge upon its ultimate reasonableness. To say that philosophy is safe and cannot be check up on is a vague assertion that does not point to the specifics in the discipline of philosophy. Science is based on arguments that are "extensional" in nature. Scientific theory points to some object or specific rather than being "intensional" statements of general reference. It is uncharacteristic for scientists to deviate so unreasonably in their thinking concerning the nature and validity of philosophical thought.
Many scientists make judgments of philosophy from a point of view removed from the many internal reasoning systems that make up the study of philosophy. This distance from philosophy lends itself to the creation of stereotypical ideas concerning the accuracy and validity of philosophical thinking. Metaphysics becomes identified as the whole of philosophy. Metaphysics can sometimes be thought of as elegant nonsense. This may be true in some instances, but it ignores the more important role of metaethics in stimulating the mind. Metaphysics might be likened to the conceptual artists paint pallet. Here the artist is free to do what ever the wish without fear of harsh intellectual reproach. It is, in a sense, the creative ground of ideas. Its intent may or may not be intended to be accurate. What is ultimately important is that the ideas it produce inspire progress in philosophical thinking. Metaphysics is in a world of its own, basing its reasoning system on words and not facts, experience and science. One way or the other they cannot lose. Either way metaphysics teaches or it inspires thinking to evolve.Even though the is-ought dichotomy or the naturalistic fallacy may seem so much elegant nonsense both serve their purpose well in getting ideas to flow.
Physics professes stability, exactness, and verifiability yet at it theoretical fringes it breaks down and to a certain extent becomes ordinary speculation. Physics and philosophy can be said merge in quantum physics. Quantum physics as jellified in string theory reveals a reasonableness that is not unlike reasoned systems found in philosophy. In newtonian physics water boils at a 100 degrees centigrade given a certain atmospheric pressure. This statement can be directly verified. There is no direct way to verify the tenants of sting theory yet there is a reasonableness to the theory that gives the theory some intellectual stature. A string is not predictable except in a statistical sense. It is not much different in cybernetic ethics, right and wrong can be viewed as a statistical moment in time given a whole galaxy upon an individual contemplating an ethical or unethical action. Right and wrong is not totally linear. Like determining the "moment" on a beam the structural moment only tells an engineer what load a beam will bear in a moment of time given certain other static and dynamic changes on the building in which the beam is fastened. This oversimplified quantum physics yet in some sense philosophy is no less complex where it touches on complex living systems whose ultimate survival is maintained by complex feedback loops that produce survivable modes of behavior. In humans these survivable mode are reinforced and perpetuated in the refinements of moral, manner, customary and statutory rule systems What a person can or cannot morally do is a function of the "ethical moment." Rule systems themselves can be thought of as functionaries of efficiency. Efficient systems overtake and envelope inefficient systems. In this respect there is a "forward biasing" evident in human actions compelling them to refine rules and increase efficiency to better facilitate survival and the rewards of prosperity niece that survival is assured. The evolution of ethical systems might thus be thought of as a product of an cultural arms race among nations to overtake one another, with the most organized and efficient ones dominating. In the same way it could be said that physical constants that appear to hold the universe together are also a product of a dynamic systems that have survived other systems with less efficient constants over billions of years of time. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade because given a very large dynamic system 100 degrees was arrived at by way of its contribution to the survivability of the entire universe. When a thing operates in reference to other things a cybernetic system appears to equalize a state of enduring stability
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First version
The strange relationship between science and philosophy
Which is the more reasonable method of viewing the world?
Cybernetic ethics straddles the gap between science and ethics in a way that needs some explaining. Newtonian physicist view the validity of a theoretical proposition in terms of its preciseness and verifiability. A philosopher generally view the validity of a theory in terms of its reasonableness, not its exactness.
There is a strange dynamic between science and philosophy in which the scientist presumes a more rational position. For instance, physicists interviewed for the production The Elegant Universe were ever so certain that "philosophy is safe, it cannot be checked up on," while physics ostensibly is reliable, accurate and reproducible. This was a very bold statement. Philosophy may seem safe to the outside observer, but inside ideas are related to other ideas in a huge galaxy of ides that the mind of the philosopher can easily navigate. What is taken for philosophy by scientists is metaphysics. But, metaphysics is not the whole of philosophy. Metaphysics might be likened to the conceptual artists paint pallet. Here the artist is free to do what ever the wish without fear of reproach. It is in a sense, metaphysics is the creative ground of ideas. The point of metaphysics may or may not be intended to be accurate. What is ultimately important is that ideas inspire progress in philosophical thinking. Yes, ideas in metaphysic are safe. One way or the other they cannot easily lose. Even though the is-ought dichotomy or the naturalistic fallacy may seem so much elegant nonsense they serve their purpose well in getting ideas to flow.
Physics professes stability, exactness, and verifiability yet at it theoretical fringes it breaks down and to a certain extent becomes ordinary speculation. To some extent it could be said, physics and philosophy merge in quantum physics. Presently, there is no way to directly prove or disprove quantum theory except by observation and calculation. Quantum physics describes a chaotic world that can only be statistically known. In this sense it is a reasoned system, not an exact system such as Newtonian physics. Cybernetic ethics in a similar way is built upon observation.and a statistical point of reference. One might not know exactly how an ethical system has evolved, but its evolution can be reasonably derived and described in mathematical terms. In the text numerous examples of the evolution of traffic laws is cited. Using the evolution of traffic laws as an example a person can gain an understanding of how systems evolve and the reasons being the changes that they observe.The evolution of these laws reflects the compulsion and drive of human being to survive and thrive while at the same time minimizing pain, suffering and death.
Home page click here