What is the Brightline Between Science and Philosophy?

[Branden]

I think I have a pretty decent grasp of Objectivism (I've read most of Rand's and Peikoff's works, and am starting on Tara Smith's) but there is one major thing I still don't understand:

According to Objectivism, what is the brightline between science and philosophy?

Rand defining philosophy: "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence." (Ayn Rand Lexicon, "Philosophy")

Peikoff defining science: "Science is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation." (OPAR, pg 35)

At first glance, I think these two definitions seem to be pretty sturdy (particularly the definition of science, which seems to lay the foundations for the solution the rationalist-empiricist debate). However, when I try to apply these two definitions to specific issues, I don't get a very clear result, with my understanding.

It seems to me that given that definition of science, ethics could be defined as a science. It is based upon some observations and then reason is applied to gain systematic knowledge. However, Rand multiply times includes ethics as part of philosophy, and ethics would seem to also fall under her definition of philosophy, as it describes man's fundamental relationship to existence. Is it not a problem for ethics to fall under both? Or is ethics excluded as a science because it isn't "fundamental"? If so, then how does one determine what is fundamental? It seems an argument could be made for nearly anything to be termed fundamental, or anything to be non-fundamental (excluding metaphysics).

This same problem, I think, applies to a lot of other science-related issues as well. Emotions seems to fit the requirements of a science, and I think many non-Objectivists would classify it as a sub-section of a science; however, Objectivists seem to offer a theory of emotions that is philosophical and not scientific. I agree with Rand that emotions aren't a valid means of gaining knowledge, and that is part of philosophy, but she goes on to make claims such as this:

"An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises." (“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” March 1964).

That proposition seems to require scientific backing instead of just philosophical backing. Although the value in-and-of-itself might be decided philosophically, the reactions in man's brain seem to me to be scientifically based.

Furthermore, Rand has two statements in the Ayn Rand Lexicon on "Philosophy" and "Science" that confuse me:

"Philosophy is the science that studies the fundamental aspects of the nature of existence."

"Science was born as a result and consequence of philosophy..."

Can anyone help me understand these subtleties? I feel like I'm nit-picking, but as I'm pretty interested in science and Objectivism (and how they interact), I think its important.

[softwareNerd]

Properly, Philosophy is a science, so Ethics is so too. In other words, Philosophy is a type of knowledge, and its sub-branches, like Ethics, are a type of knowledge too.

I'm not clear about the question you're asking regarding emotions. Emotions themselves are neither science nor philosophy. Are you asking about the knowledge and theories about emotions? If so, the detailed understanding of how emotions work are a a part of biology and psychology. However, this does not preclude Philosophy from pointing out that emotions are not tools of cognition.

Individual sciences study specific areas or aspects of reality, and lay out principles in these areas. Philosophy has to draw upon the broadest of principles from the specific sciences, whenever these have a bearing on the fundamental aspects of existence and of man's nature.

[Branden]

I'm not clear about the question you're asking regarding emotions. Emotions themselves are neither science nor philosophy. Are you asking about the knowledge and theories about emotions? If so, the detailed understanding of how emotions work are a a part of biology and psychology. However, this does not preclude Philosophy from pointing out that emotions are not tools of cognition.

You were right: I was asking about the knowledge and theories about emotions. I agree with the rest of your statement. However, given that all of what you said is true, is it thus valid to make a philosophical statement about the theories and knowledge of emotions independent of biology and psychology? As an example, Rand's statement that "An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises." That to me seems to be a philosophical approach to emotions instead of a biological or psychological approach, which is where I become confused. And if knowledge regarding emotions are primarily based in the fields of biology and psychology, could one accept the Objectivist philosophy while still rejecting Rand's theory of emotions? Or is that theory part of the Objectivist philosophy? (I don't meant to constraint this just to emotions, its just an example case of a lack of understanding that I have).

[softwareNerd]

...As an example, Rand's statement that "An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man’s value premises." That to me seems to be a philosophical approach to emotions instead of a biological or psychological approach, which is where I become confused.

Just to chew on this a bit, what makes that a specifically philosophical approach? For instance, if one were to say: "human beings have the faculty of rationality", is that a philosophical approach, or biological? Or, if one were to say that reason helps human beings deal with their envrionment, is that philosophy or history? Edited June 8, 2008 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

The distinction is, IMO, made clearest in the ITOE appendix "Philosophic vs. Scientific Issues".

Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment. Philosophy is not dependent on the discoveries of science; the reverse is true. So whenever you are in doubt about what is or is not a philosophical subject, ask yourself whether you need a specialized knowledge, beyond the knowledge available to you as a normal adult, unaided by any special knowledge or special instruments. And if the answer is possible to you on that basis alone, you are dealing with a philosophical question. If to answer it you would need training in physics, or psychology, or special equipment, etc., then you are dealing with a derivative or scientific field of knowledge, not philosophy.

Also note on p. 35 (speaking of the science of physics) where she says "the science is an organized body of knowledge about these phenomena, acquired by and communicable to a human consciousness" and "Epistemology is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of acquiring and validating knowledge. Ethics is a science devoted to the discovery of the proper methods of living one's life."

This indicates that there are lines but they aren't bright. I think that her statement about emotions is correct, qua philosophical statement, but substantial elaboration involving conjectures about the workings of serotonin or even the existence of such hormones is the subject matter of specialized science, not philosophy.

[Branden]

Just to chew on this a bit, what makes that a specifically philosophical approach? For instance, if one were to say: "human beings have the faculty of rationality", is that a philosophical approach, or biological? Or, if one were to say that reason helps human beings deal with their envrionment, is that philosophy or history?

I hadn't really thought of it that way. At first though, I guess I wouldn't really know how to classify it. I will think it over though.

All of that was exactly what I was looking for, David. Thank you very much. I think I understand the answer to my question.

[tito]

Philosophy is a science - it is unique only in that it lays the foundations for the other "special sciences"

[ruveyn ben yosef]

Philosophy is a science - it is unique only in that it lays the foundations for the other "special sciences"

Can a philosophy be tested empirically in a manner similar to a scientific theory. A scientific theory is tested experimentally. If the experiment refutes prediction of the theory (assuming all auxiliary conditions are met) then the theory is either discarded or modified. How is a philosophy tested, assuming that it is internally consistent?

ruveyn

[DavidOdden]

Can a philosophy be tested empirically in a manner similar to a scientific theory.

One of the most fundamental problems in modern philosophy is the assumption that this need not be so. This leads to the almost universally accepted paradigm for modern philosophy, the theory of Making Shit Up.

A scientific theory is tested experimentally.

And the most important difference w.r.t philosophy is that philosophical theories are tested against ordinary observations -- a.k.a. common sense. You don't need to understand what a Fourier Transform is in order to be able to test a philosophical theory, but you probably do in order to test an acoustic one.

[eriatarka]

Can a philosophy be tested empirically in a manner similar to a scientific theory. A scientific theory is tested experimentally. If the experiment refutes prediction of the theory (assuming all auxiliary conditions are met) then the theory is either discarded or modified. How is a philosophy tested, assuming that it is internally consistent?

The idea of sciences being necessarily experimental is fairly modern/Anglo-American: in European philosophy, the German word which gets translated as science is 'Wissenschaft' which has a broader meaning, referring to any organised body of human knowledge regardless of whether it follows the scientific method.

Rand's usage of the term 'science' seems to have grown out of this tradition and it's not how most modern scientists would use it, especially since I vaguely remember her calling mathematics a science in ITOE (although I dont have a citation) and ethics a science in TOE, neither of which would commonly be called sciences. Its a matter of different philosophical traditions really.

Edited June 12, 2008 by eriatarka

[tito]

Can a philosophy be tested empirically in a manner similar to a scientific theory. A scientific theory is tested experimentally. If the experiment refutes prediction of the theory (assuming all auxiliary conditions are met) then the theory is either discarded or modified. How is a philosophy tested, assuming that it is internally consistent?

ruveyn

No. You have the empiricists who believe this and deny rationality. You have the rationalists who believe in rationality but not empiricism. Both are corrupt.

As Ayn rand put it.

[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind. --Ayn Rand

If a philosophy does not stand up to both measures of integrity, it is rotten.

[volco]

Since philosophy encompasses Epistemology, and a clear Epistemology is the ONLY tool of science, then how can there be a line between them? It´s superlative.

[Breschau]

I'd think the issue is with faulty definitions.

Ethics and philosophy are not sciences. I think they could be if logic were rigidly applied at all times, but as philosophy stands, it is neither systematic nor based on observation and experiment.

Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

Ethics is the study of what we ought to do.

Science is the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

The only overlap, ostensibly, is the "reality" of philosophy and "the physical and natural world" in science. It is easy to avoid this by simply considering that philosophy is more esoteric and science more concrete. The thought experiments of philosophy are nothing like the real experiments of science. With philosophy, it is an endless debate of opinion. With science, the final arbiter is the data.

If only philosophy, and ethics, were so simple.

As you can see, this opinion is one of the reasons I'm drawn to Objectivism. Favoring reason over all else is something I'm all for.

Grund über alles.