The trade-off of science
The natural sciences used to consist of a branch of philosophy because once upon a time they were at level 3. While a field consists of level 3 claims, it is not capable of progress. Progress, as that term is normally applied to intellectual endeavours, involves level 2 claims, so that the progress as such is progress towards non-coercive agreement. How, therefore, did natural philosophy manage to rid itself of its level 3 claims so that it could finally progress, and is the rest of philosophy capable of doing the same thing?
The trade-off of science is that it exchanges some of its level 3 claims for level 1 claims. That is, it takes some of its unagreeable issues and simply resolves them one way or the other by means of respective stipulative assumptions--the level 1 claims. The justification of these assumptions is purely that they provide a framework within which the remaining claims that can still be made are all at level 2. Hence, in order for science to progress, it must necessarily close off certain avenues for speculation about which it knows it will never reach a consensus. Once you make certain assumptions, other claims will necessarily follow from them, and this is part of how agreement falls into the picture. Note, however, that the agreement cannot simply be logically deduced from the assumptions themselves a priori. Science is not about arriving at a dogmatic picture of the universe. Science leaves open as many questions about the nature of the universe as it can, but its assumptions provide a framework for how those questions can be answered with agreeability one way or the other.
This is precisely what philosophy lacks: any sort of coherent assumptions about what constitues a resolution to a philosophical question. In fact, it is very arguable that any such assumptions would be meaningless. The whole point of philosophy in the first place is precisely to question one's assumptions. It is simply that the very nature of this process in the first place logically precludes the possibility of ever reaching any final, decisive agreement about one's questions--nor does any agreement ever have to be reached. Part of the purpose of philosophy, in questioning one's assumptions, is to illuminate the different ways in which one can understand the same objects of philosophical enquiry. This enables one to move beyond the veil of received opinion through the use of reason and argument, and hence is one of the most important of human activities.
The trade-off of science is that it exchanges some of its level 3 claims for level 1 claims. That is, it takes some of its unagreeable issues and simply resolves them one way or the other by means of respective stipulative assumptions--the level 1 claims. The justification of these assumptions is purely that they provide a framework within which the remaining claims that can still be made are all at level 2. Hence, in order for science to progress, it must necessarily close off certain avenues for speculation about which it knows it will never reach a consensus. Once you make certain assumptions, other claims will necessarily follow from them, and this is part of how agreement falls into the picture. Note, however, that the agreement cannot simply be logically deduced from the assumptions themselves a priori. Science is not about arriving at a dogmatic picture of the universe. Science leaves open as many questions about the nature of the universe as it can, but its assumptions provide a framework for how those questions can be answered with agreeability one way or the other.
This is precisely what philosophy lacks: any sort of coherent assumptions about what constitues a resolution to a philosophical question. In fact, it is very arguable that any such assumptions would be meaningless. The whole point of philosophy in the first place is precisely to question one's assumptions. It is simply that the very nature of this process in the first place logically precludes the possibility of ever reaching any final, decisive agreement about one's questions--nor does any agreement ever have to be reached. Part of the purpose of philosophy, in questioning one's assumptions, is to illuminate the different ways in which one can understand the same objects of philosophical enquiry. This enables one to move beyond the veil of received opinion through the use of reason and argument, and hence is one of the most important of human activities.
Comments