Philosophy and Science
Philosophy and Science
Earlier philosophy was considered to be part of the pure science and philosophy and science were amalgamated in such a compound that making a distinction was entirely out of question. Intellectuals were scientist as well as philosopher. Slowly number of axioms and self proved theorems reduced. Assumptive science based on physical observation decreased with number of years down the line. In place of that analytical science with experimental proofs started to take the lead. This was the time when Philosophy and Science took their different part and after the renaissance the philosophy and science were remarkably distinct. Philosophers were not able to give the scientific explanation rationally. Now the rational explanation was expected by the analytical science based on theoretical calculation in some areas and experimental verification in most of the other areas initially. As the number of person got interested in such scientific procedure, philosophy was considered to be an additive ingredient to science at the end of the scientific understanding.
Philosophy evolved to explain the existence of society for common interests and survival of human in a social structure. Social order and political thinking were the main themes of their early works. Philosopher’s turned to explain the human nature, society, social order, putting forward political theories with reference to different ages. The theory given by one has been contradicted by others contemporary thinkers and their modified theories have been contradicted by many others subsequently. This happens because one theory may be fit for one age and as the age passes, generation to generation wise change in people thinking makes the philosophers to change their theory of social order, human nature etc. So these theories were specific to certain area and time. There were no generic and rational discourses for all the changes happening in society. In short these theories were not universal as we see in the case of scientific discourse. This is happening in all the philosophical writings if you take a chronological look over some 200 years of written documents. Another cause of the same can be put in the way that as thinking human being where each one is different from other from generation to generation; their thought cannot be quantified according to any universal set of rules.
On the other hand when we give a critical view to the development of analytical science, we see the rational explanation of physical phenomenon with experimental proofs. This has been accepted by the next generation of scientist and they worked more or less in the same line for further understanding and subtlety inherent in the phenomenon under consideration. However, there were few exceptions in scientific enquiry of earlier thinkers and scientist. These exceptions were not entirely wrong but few deviations exist. These deviations bears the fact that the different streams of science were not at par when certain explanations were put forward and it happens to be not tested against the possible interrelation. But overall the explanations have been valid for the crude or limited explanation of the phenomenon and it has not been disregarded in future also. The simplest example of this is the fact that we start studying about physics in schools with the law of motions given by Newton only to realize at degree and masters level that all the theories is not valid for all the phenomenon in macroscopic and at microscopic level. Nevertheless, it explains most of the broad things we realise in our common life and so the importance of it cannot be discarded at any age.
Earlier philosophy was considered to be part of the pure science and philosophy and science were amalgamated in such a compound that making a distinction was entirely out of question. Intellectuals were scientist as well as philosopher. Slowly number of axioms and self proved theorems reduced. Assumptive science based on physical observation decreased with number of years down the line. In place of that analytical science with experimental proofs started to take the lead. This was the time when Philosophy and Science took their different part and after the renaissance the philosophy and science were remarkably distinct. Philosophers were not able to give the scientific explanation rationally. Now the rational explanation was expected by the analytical science based on theoretical calculation in some areas and experimental verification in most of the other areas initially. As the number of person got interested in such scientific procedure, philosophy was considered to be an additive ingredient to science at the end of the scientific understanding.
Philosophy evolved to explain the existence of society for common interests and survival of human in a social structure. Social order and political thinking were the main themes of their early works. Philosopher’s turned to explain the human nature, society, social order, putting forward political theories with reference to different ages. The theory given by one has been contradicted by others contemporary thinkers and their modified theories have been contradicted by many others subsequently. This happens because one theory may be fit for one age and as the age passes, generation to generation wise change in people thinking makes the philosophers to change their theory of social order, human nature etc. So these theories were specific to certain area and time. There were no generic and rational discourses for all the changes happening in society. In short these theories were not universal as we see in the case of scientific discourse. This is happening in all the philosophical writings if you take a chronological look over some 200 years of written documents. Another cause of the same can be put in the way that as thinking human being where each one is different from other from generation to generation; their thought cannot be quantified according to any universal set of rules.
On the other hand when we give a critical view to the development of analytical science, we see the rational explanation of physical phenomenon with experimental proofs. This has been accepted by the next generation of scientist and they worked more or less in the same line for further understanding and subtlety inherent in the phenomenon under consideration. However, there were few exceptions in scientific enquiry of earlier thinkers and scientist. These exceptions were not entirely wrong but few deviations exist. These deviations bears the fact that the different streams of science were not at par when certain explanations were put forward and it happens to be not tested against the possible interrelation. But overall the explanations have been valid for the crude or limited explanation of the phenomenon and it has not been disregarded in future also. The simplest example of this is the fact that we start studying about physics in schools with the law of motions given by Newton only to realize at degree and masters level that all the theories is not valid for all the phenomenon in macroscopic and at microscopic level. Nevertheless, it explains most of the broad things we realise in our common life and so the importance of it cannot be discarded at any age.