To which AndrewC replied: Without philosophy and its wisdom your "science" is nothing but an efficient means to maleficence.
Not to mention that so many prominent scientists actually turn out to be closet philosophers these days. Materialism is a philosophical doctrine, for instance. Metaphysical naturalism likewise.
The problem seems to be that there are two orders of knowledge, or ways of knowing, the natural sciences (physics, chemistry and so forth) and the sciences of the spirit (philosophy, theology, history, sociology and so forth). Each has its own methodology, and its own sphere of investigation. The fact is, even though the two are different in their methods and goals, both are needed to describe a universe. They are actually complementary in this sense.
However, post-Enlightenment, the "Naturwissenchaften [natural science] side" of the great "Cartesian divide" has sought to eclipse and deligitimate the other great epistemic branch (the "Giesteswissenchaften [philosophy et al.] side").
For instance, metaphysical naturalism holds that only those things are real that can be observed. But this is a philosophical statement (an ontological statement in fact). So it seems that some modern scientists wittingly or not are engaging in philosophy without a license and without full disclosure, while deploring legitimate philosophy as dealing with things that really don't exist -- because they are not direct observables, susceptible to scientific test.
To me, the Cartesian split is utterly false. Science has its proper domain and is sovereign there; likewise philosophy, etc., has its proper domain, and is sovereign there. It seems to me neither is "better than" the other, for both are necessary to the complete description of the universe in which we live.
What I would like to see is greater epistemological rigor on both sides. Inevitably science takes its cues from philosophy; and philosophy stands to benefit from scientific insights. Bohr said that science is not so much about the "how" of nature, but about what we can "say" about nature. Questions of why and how -- questions of essence -- really don't fall within the purview of science. At least, historically they have not. But then along comes a Jacques Monod, a Richard Lewontin, a Richard Dawkins; and the two sides of the so-called Cartesian split really get muddled up together.
Well, them be my thoughts FWIW. Thanks so much for writing, AndrewC!
Philosophy is a natural extension of science. A good scientist needs to be a bit of a philosopher.
After all, philosophy is basically analysis, extracting meaning from what we see, and projecting meaning out beyond what we can see. If science gathers the data, it is philosophy that analyses it and formulates the new questions for further investigation.
Its a natural part of the process, and a really good scientist, the ones who go for the big questions, have to walk on the wild side.
Its not merely ok, its the way it is. We just need to be clear when we are doing the one, and when we are doing the other, and in fact the line gets fuzzy, but there is a line. The beauty of the process is that we keep pushing the line farther and farther back, converting the unknown into the known, and handing it off to the engineers and techs who take it from there.
I certainly don't see science as in competition with philosophy. Their job is to gather the data. I'll make sense of it if I can. If I can't, clearly they need to gather more data. There are few philosophical questions that can't be settled by either time, experience, blood on the battlefield, or more data.
Well said.. a fully trained "scientist" should then be a philosopher scientist or science philosopher.. being merely a "scientist" negates fully half the spectrum of the questions.. if that.. makeing in essence a "scientist" a poorly trained technician..