Exploring the Interplay Between Philosophy and Evidence in Science
Written on
Understanding the Role of Evidence in Philosophy
Recently, I received a comment on one of my articles that compared philosophers to flat-earthers, suggesting that both groups argue without referencing evidence. While this comparison can be frustrating, there is a significant distinction to be made. It is essential to differentiate between the rejection of evidence and the lack of appeal to it. Over the past few decades, philosophy has increasingly collaborated with various fields, such as economics and psychology, to develop new insights about our world.
However, philosophy often relies on sound reasoning and good faith. As noted by Kant, even pure reasoning has its limitations, and venturing beyond those limits can lead to mere speculation. This raises important questions: How can we ensure our discussions on ethics or knowledge remain grounded in reality rather than drifting into fantastical notions?
These questions are valid, and philosophers are acutely aware of them. Many scientists and those educated in scientific methods view evidence and the scientific method as reliable means of grounding discussions in reality. Science serves as a consistent method to ensure our claims are based on factual information rather than myths or unfounded beliefs.
The philosophy of science, however, is often a contentious topic among scientists, akin to a forbidden fruit. While I do not shy away from this academic taboo, I believe it is crucial for those trained in the sciences to understand its historical and philosophical context. My own journey into philosophy began with my interest in science.
This essay aims to defend the role of science against common criticisms. While I — or any philosopher — will not dispute that philosophy often does not engage directly with evidence, I seek to explain the reasons behind this.
The Instrumental Value of Evidence
My first point focuses on the concept of "evidence." Evidence holds value primarily as a tool for facilitating communication among experts. Essentially, it functions as a language with instrumental significance. If this is accurate, then evidence is inherently value-laden. In contrast, philosophers strive for a mode of communication that seeks to be free from such biases.
Philosophers typically refrain from handling "evidence" because we recognize our limitations in that area. The expertise required to analyze and interpret evidence is usually acquired through scientific training. Therefore, we cannot confidently assert evidence for claims beyond our expertise.
Before proceeding, I want to clarify my stance: I am not diminishing the importance of evidence nor undermining the authority of science. Rather, I intend to explore the nature of this esteemed discipline. If a consistent system of evidence could substantiate all our beliefs, we would certainly pursue it. However, contemporary philosophers increasingly acknowledge that achieving this is not feasible.
Evidence, much like currency, does not possess intrinsic worth. Rather, it derives its value from the specific functions it serves. Its primary role is to enable communication, especially within scientific discourse.
In everyday discussions, we do not typically demand proof when someone claims, "I had pancakes for breakfast." However, when a scientist asserts, "Newton was incorrect," the scientific community will immediately seek evidence to support that claim.
It is crucial to recognize that both statements are making claims about reality and can be categorized as true or false. The difference lies not in the truth of the claims but in the authority over those claims. When the scientific community states, "Water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom," it establishes a strong case that is difficult to contest. Conversely, when a person states their breakfast choice, they do not monopolize that truth in the same way.
Thus, scientific communication differs from everyday conversations in that it demands a certain authority over factual claims. To maintain this authority, a structured system of communication must be established, which is where evidence plays a vital role.
For evidence to fulfill its function effectively, it must be valued by the community that uses it. Just as the value of money relies on collective agreement, the value of evidence is contingent upon shared acknowledgment. Consequently, individuals who do not recognize this value will not see evidence as serving its communicative purpose. This explains why, despite overwhelming evidence supporting the Earth's spherical shape, there are still flat-earthers, and why some reject the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth.
What About Philosophers?
Most philosophers respect the authority of science and appreciate the role of evidence in scientific discourse. So why do we not invoke evidence in philosophical discussions? The answer lies in the nature of our communication, which often transcends scientific parameters.
Consider currency as an analogy: US dollars are useful in the United States but require conversion to be spent in the UK. Similarly, evidence in philosophy operates within its own context. When philosophers make claims, they do not necessarily draw upon scientific evidence because the nature of their arguments is distinct. This does not imply a lack of authority in these fields; rather, it reflects a different approach to asserting that authority.
Evidence, like money, has contextual relevance. When we venture outside its intended use, it becomes ineffective. Thus, a philosopher who excessively cites scientific evidence risks misapplying it to their philosophical inquiries.
On Technical Expertise
The second reason for philosophers' lack of engagement with evidence relates to practical considerations. Scientific evidence should be interpreted and utilized by trained scientists. This is a widely accepted notion.
A common misconception perpetuated by popular science is that anyone can interpret evidence and draw reasonable conclusions independently. However, the reality is that access to scientific laboratories and advanced technologies is limited. The bureaucratic nature of scientific research makes it challenging for individuals to conduct experiments and arrive at scientifically accepted conclusions.
Moreover, even if individuals could access scientific tools, they would still face the challenge of knowing how to utilize them effectively. This is where expertise becomes paramount. Scientific endeavors require specific skills and knowledge, meaning that only those trained in relevant disciplines should handle evidence.
Philosophers are aware of these limitations and do not intentionally disregard scientific evidence. Instead, they recognize their lack of expertise in utilizing such evidence and avoid making claims that fall within the scientific realm without adequate grounding.
Philosophers Are Not Flat-Earthers
The most significant distinction between flat-earthers and philosophers lies in our respect for scientific authority. Although we are often misinterpreted as challenging that authority, we do not undermine the role of evidence in scientific discussions.
This essay aims not to assert philosophy's superiority over science nor to diminish the importance of scientific evidence. Instead, it seeks to clarify the role and value of evidence within the sciences and how that function is localized within rigorous methodologies.
In conclusion, while philosophy may not frequently appeal to evidence, it does not imply a disregard for its importance.
The first video discusses the concept of epistemology, focusing on arguments and evidence, offering insights into how philosophical reasoning interacts with scientific principles.
The second video examines the logical fallacy of suppressed evidence, illustrating the importance of maintaining a critical perspective on the evidential basis of claims.