However,
putting it that way may be to unduly separate science from philosophy
in the first place. That is, the idea that firstly there's a
scientific theory and then the philosophical objections follow. What
if the scientific theories contain many philosophical assumptions or
components from the very beginning? (I believe that they do.)
This
isn't to say that science has never had an impact on what
philosophers have argued or that scientific findings haven't made
philosophical views untenable. They have. Though that simply means
that those philosophical views were wrong; not that science always
has the last word on matters (as such).
Some
philosophers have argued that the final arbiter must always be
science, not philosophy; though that itself would require a philosophical backup and
argumentation. (This is the position of “naturalist philosophers”
such as Quine, etc.)
Here
again it can be said that philosophy and science don't move in
non-contiguous parallel lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment