Philosophy Versus Science: The Fight for Understanding Reality

Does the advancement of physical sciences render philosophy redundant? At one point, it seemed that philosophy led the charge with existential philosophy. However, as science has evolved, it now surpasses philosophy in many fields, such as sociology surpassing psychology in the social sciences and humanities.

A Rocky Analogy

Imagine Philosophy as Rocky Balboa, the tough kid from Philadelphia. Every time you push and challenge Rocky, he becomes stronger. The harder you hurt him, the more the steel shows through. Despite his rough state, Rocky will eventually win the match.

In a similar way, philosophy and science are in a match for understanding the fundamental reality. While science may currently be in the lead with projects like the new hadron collider, philosophy will ultimately prevail because it has the final say on fundamental reality.

Problems with Scientism

Scientism, the belief that science alone holds all the answers to humanity's problems, faces several challenges:

Abstract Concepts: Science attempts to describe nature but fails to instill any human rights or purpose beyond the basic need for procreation. Science is limited to tangible concepts that have a natural counterpart, not human-made constructs such as "human rights." Overestimating Science's Capabilities: Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes the state of the world but does not address how the world should be. For instance, it cannot answer ethical or moral questions. Underestimating Philosophy's Capabilities: Science assumes inherent flaws in philosophy that make it incapable of answering questions. However, many philosophical inquiries are far from being unanswerable. Interconnectedness: Science relies on philosophical methods and logic for its methodology and reasoning. Therefore, science cannot surpass philosophy as a foundation for inquiry. Limitations in Replaceability: Science cannot replace critical theories like aesthetics or develop a sufficient system of analysis to fully negate philosophy. It only perfects them.

Compliments such as "philosophy is dead" or "philosophy is irrelevant and gibberish" are greatly exaggerated and often come from individuals who lack self-reflection and cannot see the interconnectedness between philosophy and science.

Ultimately, philosophy and science complement each other, and neither can be replaced by the other. The future lies in a collaborative effort to deepen our understanding of the world.

Conclusion

The battle for understanding reality is far from over. Science has made significant strides, but it must continue to rely on philosophical principles to fully grasp the nuances of our existence.