One of my pet peeves is the idea that since we can't know anything for sure, everything is just a matter of belief and preferences. And my beliefs are just as valid as yours, no matter how wacky.
Something I read recently (I wish I could find the citation) hypothesized that if Aristotle were somehow able to materialize in today's world he would be absolutely astounded at the progress we have made in scientific knowledge. He would recognize how woefully inadequate his knowledge of scientific facts is and he would probably be soaking up as much as he could as fast as he could so that his philosophy would reflect reality. On the other hand, this person posited, Aristotle would feel right at home discussing philosophy, religion, and politics with experts of our day. His thoughts and ideas in these areas are not outdated.
I think the term that describes the difference between science and philosophy (under which term I'll include religion and politics to avoid discussing religion and politics) is cumulative truth. Science is cumulative. Philosophy is not.
Like a gigantic pyramid, science builds block upon block, discovery upon discovery to reach heights and cover areas never before reached. Conjecture and hypothesis extend the reach but only at the peril of later being proven wrong and causing the pyramid to need repair and replacement. But while little pieces here and there are patched and perfected, the bulk of scientific knowledge stands.
Philisophy, on the other hand, is more like one of those Japanese sand gardens which is made up of stones, sand, trees arranged and rearranged in endless configurations. Each arrangement gives a new meaning or perspective, a new "truth". But it does not provide a basis for building upon.
Is there "one true philosophy"? It is hard to believe and would be even harder to prove. Is there "one true science"? I think by definition there is, even though our perception of it continues to evolve as our means of measurement, detection, and replication become more and more refined.
I think a lot of the difference lies in how testable and disprovable a certain idea is. Philosophies and political theories are partially testable, that is you can try them and see what happens, but they depend so much on individuals and changing circumstances that the test is really not repeatable. Nor can you prove it to other people. (How do you demonstrate to someone else that not drinking makes you happier for example.) So testable reality can be cumulative, while untestable can not.
ReplyDeleteI think the other big issue is the difference between disagreeing and belittling. It is of course OK (necessary even) to point out that intelligent design theory is untestable and non-predictive and therefore not appropriate for a science class. By contrast it is unnecesary, rude, and counterproductive to tell those that believe in some form of creation that they are naive, foolish, or that their notion of "truth" is invalid because it isn't testable and predictive. As a personal belief and guide to your morality it is equally valid. As a predictive tool it is not.
Good comment. But isn't testable and disprovable just another definition of scientific "truths"?
ReplyDeleteAs for belittling, I think there is a certain amount of respect that can be offered for opinions and philosophies that are difficult or impossible to disprove but do we owe the same amount of respect to a dangerous philosophy (I must kill to defend my God) or silly (the moon is made of green cheese)?
Owe? No probably not. But from a practical point of view, you stand a much better chance of persuading someone out of a dangerous or silly belief if you do respect them. As Dale Carnegie says "You can't win an argument."
ReplyDelete