10.09.08
Philosophy and science education
Only a few of the graduates had studied any history and philosophy of science, and therein lies the problem. The majority had high quality degrees and some had doctorates in a science discipline, so it wasn’t that they were not well qualified in science. It was just that their study of science had been utilitarian, a means to an end with the end being a practicing scientist. They had not been given any grounding or instruction on what makes science ‘science.’ It was not their fault: history and philosophy of science was an optional part of their degree programs and many could not see the point of it.
This situation is certainly deplorable, but canned courses in the philosophy of science are not likely to be of much help. Where exactly are we to find the expostion of scientific methodology? Popper? Lakatos? Fuller? Reichenbach? Logical Positivists? Rorty? Hegel was quite influential in his day for his ‘science’ of nature. By golly, Hume (but don’t tell student his nihilism destroys the notion of scientific law). If you wish to streamline study by going to the ‘tipping point’, as it were, the only choice is Kant (unless he failed to answer Hume, in which case you are out of luck). He summarizes all that comes before him (sort of), prior to the chaotification that follows him (and from which scientists are not exempt).
More generally, with Kant in mind, scientists have forgotten that the ‘science’ of last resort, no ‘science’ at all, no doubt, is philosophy. Thus Kant, to rescue Newton, demands a ‘science’ of metaphysics. This is true by default. There is a continuum between the two for the simple reason that the basic concepts are borderline metaphysical concepts, or, more insidiously, their negations. The perfect examples lie in Darwinian biology. Kant warns that issues of ‘soul/self’, divinity, and ‘free will’ are intractable and caught up in antinomies.
In the perfect bliss of total ignorance, evolutionary biology presumes a reductionist resolution of all of these questions, unaware even of the historical legacy of their intractable nature. The result is not science, but bad philosophy.
So it is obvious that scientific education in any true sense should include philosophy. But the in the reign of scientism such a simple conclusion and its remedy appears to be beyond the pale, in the sophmoric braggart style of scientists gloating over an imaginary triumph of science over metaphysics.