These two disciplines are broad enough to have common goals, but their methods and foundations differ substantially.
It is clear that both philosophical and scientific disciplines have had a significant impact on human knowledge and, really, both types of disciplines have interacted allowing the vision that we have today of our world.
Let’s take a deeper look at what makes science and philosophy different, how they are related to each other, and why they are both so important to modern thought.
- Recommended article: “The 9 branches of Philosophy (characteristics and main authors)”
Definition of Science and Philosophy
Before going into more detail about the main differences between science and philosophy, it is necessary to define them briefly.
Science is normally understood as the study of phenomena, both natural and social, in addition to trying to explain them and understand them better. Usually, scientific disciplines use methods in which the search for explanations that allow describing reality in the truest possible way, based on facts, prevails.
The word ‘science’ comes from the Latin ‘scientia’ which means ‘knowledge, to know’. Within science there are multiple branches, which can be grouped into different domains: pure and applied sciences, health, Earth, social…
The definition of philosophy is somewhat more complicated. Mostly, it is defined as an activity in which, through the reasoning carried out by one or several people , it is intended to explore issues of a very varied nature and give them meaning. It is for this reason that, by addressing so many different topics, it is difficult to give a clear and specific definition. Traditionally, these topics have focused on explaining the question of why and what the human being exists for.
The word philosophy comes from the Greek ‘philosophia’, which means ‘love of wisdom’. As with science, philosophy has multiple branches: metaphysics, politics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, epistemology…
Main differences between Science and Philosophy
Below we detail a series of fundamental differences between philosophy and science . It should be noted that both are very extensive sets of knowledge, with which it is not an easy task to clearly delimit what is exclusively characteristic of science and what is characteristic of philosophy.
However, there are certain characteristics where it is easy to understand why they are different. Let’s see what they are about below.
1. Objectivity
Science, especially the natural and formal sciences, try to describe the world as objectively as possible.
The work of scientists revolves around the verification of facts , trying to find out what are the mechanisms that govern the phenomena of the world and that allow explaining reality.
On the contrary, in philosophy it is not about understanding facts, but rather about explaining particular visions that we have about the world. These views, whether held by one person or by several, evolve into philosophical systems.
That is why philosophy does not require empirical tests because, basically, there is nothing to prove scientifically. We are talking about the opinion of a person, not about a natural or objectively observable phenomenon.
2. Method
In science, several methods can be used to get closer to reality, especially the scientific method and different ways of observing the world with which theories and hypotheses are obtained.
On the other hand, in the case of philosophy, what is used is one’s own reasoning, reaching conclusions based on how reality is perceived. In philosophy, logical argumentation is used.
3. Speculation
Both science and philosophy speculate, to a certain extent, on the knowledge obtained . The difference lies in the degree to which these two domains speculate.
Science aims to obtain knowledge through empirical testing. That is, in most cases, if a theory or idea is found that does not fit with what has been observed in nature.
They should be discontinued, since they are considered to have reached a point where their explanations do not describe reality and are therefore no longer useful.
On the other hand, philosophy is based mostly on speculation, and any theoretical starting point can be taken as good, although this theoretical proposal may seem somewhat unlikely at first.
4. Describe reality vs. treat morale
Science tries to answer questions whose objective is to try to describe reality as closely as possible . It could be said that science tries to explain our world in the most aseptic way possible.
It does not ask whether or not a certain natural or social event is right, it simply tries to explain what is happening, why it happens and how it may develop depending on time and other variables that may influence the process.
On the other hand, philosophy has as its main purpose to define what is right and what is wrong. It asks about what can be understood as moral and what should be considered ethical.
5. Type of issues to be resolved
Science usually has as its object of study the least ambiguous topics possible. It focuses as much as possible on specific issues.
That is why the questions asked from a scientific point of view are as specific as possible, carefully formulated to avoid free interpretations.
Scientific vocabulary is characterized by being unambiguous . In this way, it is guaranteed that the maximum number of people can understand what the researcher or scientist intended to explain.
In contrast to this, philosophy asks much more general questions. These questions do not have to have definitive and blunt answers.
In addition, the terms used encompass concepts that do not have to be understood in the same way by everyone, especially if the philosophical current that uses them has not been studied in depth.
6. Different needs
Science currently starts from research through the use of experiments or replicating, in a laboratory context, situations that are the object of study.
For this reason, scientific disciplines require dedicated spaces to carry out their research.
In addition, they also need resources and a lot of money to be able to have all the material and professional equipment necessary to carry out the investigation satisfactorily.
This can be better understood if one imagines a normal biology laboratory, in which the following are necessary: microscopes, tissue samples, organs and other biological structures, formalin, antibacterial gel, scalpels, scissors, staining material and biologists specialized in laboratory research.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is not necessarily an expensive activity. What it does require is an ideal situation for philosophizing, especially a social context in which there is no fear of freely expressing ideas and in which there is no censorship or any kind of repression of freedom of expression. expression.
It should be said that since on many occasions it is not possible to extract an applied character from philosophy, it is unusual for the philosopher’s profession to be suitably remunerated for his performance.
7. One arises from the other
Science is derived from philosophy . Before the clear delimitation of what is currently understood as scientific knowledge, the knowledge that humanity possessed was intermingled, having nuances of empirical knowledge, particular beliefs and myths.
Originally, science was part of philosophy. We have an example of this in Ancient Greece, giving as an example the case of the Pythagorean sects, which investigated mathematical properties while, at the same time, gave numbers a divine character.
This type of half-scientific, half-philosophical knowledge was split in the modern vision that we have today of science and philosophy in the 17th century.
We are not saying that science and philosophy are not related at all, quite the contrary, they continue to interact today despite what many detractors, both of science and philosophy, may think.
An example of this is the case of epistemology that is present in many sciences. If one does not philosophize about the ethical implications that a certain scientific knowledge may have, there is a risk that science, instead of helping the human species, will cause serious harm to people.
The Stanford prison experiment or, going to more extreme cases such as the investigations carried out by Nazi doctors, are clear examples of the harm that comes from applying the scientific method without stopping to think about whether it is right or wrong.
Thus, with these cases the very important usefulness of philosophy in the field of science of any kind is understood.
Bibliographic references
- Blackburn, S., Ed. (1996)The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Bunnin, N.; Tsui-James, E., eds. (2008). The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
- Popkin, R.H. (1999). The Columbia History of Western Philosophy. New York, Columbia University Press.
- Rutherford, D. (2006). The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
- Sober, E. (2001). Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall.
To the classic question “what do you do?” I always answer “basically I am a psychologist”. In fact, my academic training has revolved around the psychology of development, education and community, a field of study influenced my volunteer activities, as well as my first work experiences in personal services.