Discussion
Started 26th Jan, 2019

What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?

What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century and in the context of the current technological revolution and dynamic technological progress and growing global problems?
Please, answer, comments.
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes

Most recent answer

19th Jun, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz,
Thanks for your reply
As I posted in a another thread, the importance of philosophy on the development of science is welcome. My post follows.
"Philosophy (lato sensu) is always involved implicitly or explicitly in any scientific theory, such as science, namely its concepts of reality, time, space and causality rely at the heart of many philosophers' thinking. Immanuel Kant's theory is a telling example of this.
It is worth mentioning that to say that philosophy has nothing to do with science is in itself a philosophical statement. The following statement of the English philosopher Francis Bacon is one of my favorite statements that speak in favor of the role of philosophy (stricto sensu) in the clarification of evasive concepts that often pervade the so called "soft" sciences (e.g., human/social sciences). And here it goes the cogent idea of Francis Bacon: "Truth comes out of error more readily than out of confusion." This is, I think, food for thought for any scientist, however distinguished s/he may be. It might even be the case that famous scientists are, without intending it, deep philosophers in the broad sense of the word.
2 Recommendations

Popular replies (1)

6th Oct, 2021
Anthony St. John
Independent Scholar
6 October MMXXI
That's a really good question, and perhaps unanswerable.
I see Science in one corner and Philosophy in the other corner--opposite one and other.
Will they come out to fight each other, or to cooperate?
This quandary should be talked about more frequently.
Cordially...
ASJ
12 Recommendations

All replies (76)

26th Jan, 2019
Stephen Andrew Linstead
The University of York
A quick response would suggest that the work of Karen Barad would be a good place to start, as this is exactly the question that she addresses in "Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning". The most vigorous discussions currently explore the "new materialism", drawing on complexity thinking, post-structuralism, and relationality, and female philosophers (eg Haraway, Braidotti, Grosz) are well represented. There is also a varied body of work on the Anthropocene encompassing everything from the post-human and robots to climate change, euthanasia and big data. Wark's "Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene" is a stimulating take on this.
5 Recommendations
26th Jan, 2019
Daniel Goldman
Promote.Health
Philosophy still plays a major role in the investigation of science itself. From the time that Bacon formulated a scientific methodology, right through the time of Popper, there has been much philosophical investigation of science. However, in the 21st century, much of this investigation halted. People stopped being concerned about if, why, how, and when science worked, and just started going through the motions. But many of the philosophical problems associated with scientific inquiry, such as the problem of induction, were never solved.
Ethical questions of course also remain. Are there times where scientists shouldn't be open about their work? Are there certain things that scientists shouldn't research? There's a lot of harm that can be done by those with a lot of knowledge and the desire to abuse it. Our research on deadly pathogens can save a lot of lives, but in the wrong hands, the information can be used to make biological weapons. So it's a very complicated situation.
10 Recommendations
26th Jan, 2019
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
University of South-Eastern Norway
Philosophy or systematic philosophical reflection can contribute to many challenges in modern science. I am concerned both with scientific value and relevance. What is it to do research of value? To whom might we owe our research to be relevant? For me Kurt Lewin asks questions that need attention that are of this nature.
5 Recommendations
27th Jan, 2019
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz.
" What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century? --- You ask.
As you know, in the ancient times all sciences were subsumed, say, by the umbrella of philosophy. As time went by, sciences separeted from philosophy. Even so, and as I see it, philosophy continues to be of paramount importance for the development of sciences in the current century. We all know of the importance of philosophers of science, such as T. Kuhn, K. Popper, J. Laudan, and I. Lakatos, to name a few, for the development of science.
Science has generally to do with empirical work and conceptual clarification. Once, philosopher of science R. Horgan astutely remarked that all empiricism in the world cannot salvage an unclear idea. Actually, an experiment run in an atmosphere of conceptual confusion rearely, if ever, clarifies anything. Philosophy's contribuition to the development of sciences has maninly to do with the role of conceptual clarifications in the fabric of making science. Wittgenstein often thought of himself as a conceptual therapist, that is, someone who performed philosophical or conceptual clarifications to prepare the terrein for scientists to do well their job. In addition, it is often the case that philosophy raises questions, some of which have ethical implications, that are investigated by scientists. Kant's once remarked that empirical intuitions without concepts are blind, and concepts without empirical intutions are empty. In other words, science without theory and philosophy would be no science at all. So, philosophy has greatly contributed, still contributes, and will contribute to the development of science.
Best regards,
Orando
4 Recommendations
29th Jan, 2019
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy
University of South-Eastern Norway
Dariusz Prokopowicz Stephen Andrew Linstead Daniel Goldman Orlando M Lourenço
Fateh Boutekkouk
I am worried about the actual gap between philosophy and science. It is both a problem for academics working with philosophy and academics working with science - as if there should be a difference. I myself am both a philosopher and and a practical empirical reseacher. Most clearly I often see this gap with my master students. They often work according to method as "rules", but often they get into challenges because the "real world" and "method" does not fit together. On one side modern philosophy of science is often represented in a way that makes it hard to translate and apply in emperical real life situations - if they understand it at all in some cases. The translation into theoretical method does not really make it clearer. I challenge my students to look at method as "ways of finding out things", "ways of exploring" and ask them to question what they are doing, why they are doing in this way, if it seem sensible, understandable and if it works as they thought it should. I see hope for bridging the gap in some ways. When students and researchers get into asking themselves these type of questions sometimes there emerges both real philosophical reflection and a deeper understanding of what method really is.
John Dewey (1917 - "The need for recovery of philosophy" - in "Creative intellegence: Essays in the pragmatic attitude") says that philosophy is useless unless it is about real problems of men. He writes:
"Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."
I would like to add that science is very problematic if it is done by researchers who do not have a real understanding about philosophy and ethics. Plato suggests a way of judgning quality that is relevent both for philosophy and science (Laws II). It should be 1. recognizable (the "map" should look like the terrain it is made for), 2. funktion/work (The "map" should actualle work in the terrain it is made for", 3. Benefit humans longterm (it is not enough that something gives short term satisfaction, but it needs to benefit longterm).
5 Recommendations
29th Jan, 2019
Daniel Goldman
Promote.Health
Kjartan Skogly Kversøy, I agree with most of what you say. It's a failure of the higher education system that science degrees do not come with the requirement that people take courses in the history and philosophy of science, or even probability theory, which is a core foundation of science.
2 Recommendations
29th Jan, 2019
Carlos Pérez del Valle
University Foundation San Pablo CEU
Philosophy is always the question about the fundations. For the law of the 21st century, there is no other safe way out to verify the justice of options and decisions. In current criminal law, for example, the option for criminal policy and the rejection of philosophy, implies insecurity - and arbitrariness - in the proposed solutions.
3 Recommendations
29th Jan, 2019
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz and all discussants,
Dear Dariusz, I have already give an answer to your interesting question. But I would like to add something to my previous answer in order to illustrate how much can be be gained if we do not establish a gap between science and philosophy.
As the previous comments clearly show, all of us are convinced that science and philosophy are two intertwined realities. Even so, there are now, say, many scientific departments that pay, little, if any attention to philosophy and epistemology, as if we could dispense with them while performing empirical research. This is an unjustified and unjustifiable gap. The gap reminds me of positivism and empiricism. Note that critic R. Horgan astutely remarked that all empiricism in the world cannot salvage an unclear idea. In other words, when we perform empirical research, we should be first, say, "students of logic" and epistemology and only after that be "students of nature". Because this often is not the case, there are many occasions on which we conduct empirical research or test what is untestable for what we want to test is true by definitin and hence cannot be tested and falsified. This occurs frequently in my area of expertise, developmental psychology, let alone other scientific domains.
To illustrate, consider the following example, which shows us the dangers of trying to perform empirical research or being a student of nature before being a student of logic or someone interested in conceptual clarifications and logical or rational arguments, Here it goes the example: Once, a PHD student wanted to test the following hypothesis as part of his PHD dissertation: Piagetian formal operations appear only after concrete operations. This hypothesis, however, is not a testable hypothesis because it is true by defintion and cannot therefore be falsified. As you certainly know, formal operations a la Piaget are operations upon concrete operations. Because of this, formal operations can only appear after concrete operations and hence it would be, say, a pure waste of time to conduct an empirical research to show that the former can only appear after the latter. The psychological literature is full with examples of empirical studies that are not empirical at all because they aim to test what is true by definition and hence cannot ever be falsified. If the student at hand were, say, a student of logic before being a student of nature, he would easily see that his hypothesis was not empirical nor was it subject to falsification.
Accordingly, to perform the designed study, research or hypothesis would be a waste of time because the formutaled hypothesis was true by definition and did not need to be tested.
This example clearly shows that empirical science and epistemological and philosophical clarifcation go hand in hand. When this is not the case, we risk performing otiose empirical research or no empirical research in the end. The example also shows that to argue for a divide or separation between science and philosophy is a serious mistake. However different they are, science and philosophy are often intertwined,
KInd regards,
Orlando
4 Recommendations
29th Jan, 2019
Brad Jesness
a starting point for Enlightened Behavioral Science/ Human Ethology
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz
This Question seems little different from the long-running thread (of 3 years):
I encourage all to read my Answers there and some of others as well.
2 Recommendations
31st Jan, 2019
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
In my opinion Philosophy tries to reach where the research possibilities of science do not reach. Philosophy tries to determine the directions of the development of science. Philosophy allows to create theses for transcendental, timeless considerations such as the essence and meaning of human life? The essence and sense of the existence of many categories, values, ideas functioning in the Universe and on the Earth, but because of their idealistic, abstract, theoretical character can not be verified by currently used objective, instrumental research methods.
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes
3 Recommendations
31st Jan, 2019
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
In the past, in some epochs, eg in ancient times, philosophy was the main inspiration for the development of science. In some other epochs, like. eg in the Middle Ages, the development of philosophy was correlated with certain arbitrarily adopted dogmas, or as in the 19th and early 20th century, the development of philosophy was correlated with scientific discoveries of certain fields of science, ideologies created for the development of economic, political, and state systems. Currently, philosophy has unlimited opportunities for development, but in my opinion its development is currently determined to a large extent by the technological, civilizational and social progress of humanity.
I invite you to the discussion.
Best wishes
2 Recommendations
31st Jan, 2019
Rohit Manilal Parikh
The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
21st Century is a mission for every human being for hopeful light so that they may take the advantage of scientific development & electronic media to view our world development in a manner for which we may take the advantage for our life to make the process of knowledge, career, & the foot way path of our life .
It is in this line sometime back I have my publication under the captioned ''The Way to 21st Century which I submit herewith for your perusal with a request to offer your valuable opinion
Thanks
2 Recommendations
31st Jan, 2019
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz,
I follow you when you say that philosophy, the mother of all sciences, allows us to create theses for transcendental, timeless considerations and issues such as the essence and meaning of human life. Philosophy is also concrened with the essence and sense of the existence of many categories, values, ideas functioning in the Universe and on the Earth. But, as you rightly say, because of their idealistic, abstract, theoretical character, those issue can not be verified, nor can they be falsified by, say, the normal scientific methods and procedure. Some scientists look with suspicion to the role of philosphy and epistemology in scientific reaserch. As a scienstist, I do not espouse this position and think that philosophy and epistemololy make, for example, conceptual clarifications which should be taken into account when scienstists do their empirical job. Wittgenstein, for example, thought of himself as a conceptual therapist who prepared, as it were, the terrein for scientists to do well their empirical job. In fact, an experiment run in an atmosphere of conceptual confusion, rarely, if ever, clarifies anything. And critic R. Horgan once cogently remarked that all empiricism in the world cannot salvage an unclear idea. I think that science needs theory and concepts but also empirical facts. Or, as Kant puts it, "[empirical] intuitions without concepts are blind, and concepts without intuitions are empty.
In a nutshell, however different they are, science and philosophy are, say, two faces of the same coin, to look for the unknown.
Kind regards,
Orlando
5 Recommendations
4th Feb, 2019
Elvis Joseph Miti
University of Cape Town
Following the discussions above, I realize that the struggle for who is better in our academic, professional, knowledge and skills is real and very bad for the universe. This is very unfortunate because I believe every person regardless of his or her kind of field of training and skills, should always realise that training is a "merge" of different bodies of knowledge and skills. It is very unfortunate to see that the so called empirical scientists are able to forget that unless there is philosophy, they may not even define their research protocols and explain their findings. Without Epistemology and etymology for example, it would be difficult even to know the real meaning of the term "science" or "empirical". No wonder we have very "cognitive" weak Social Workers, Physician, Surgeons, engineers etc. It is like eating rice with a spoon and don't realize the importance of the spoon. The problem of who is going to get a better salary and recognition is killing the body of knowledge and skills .
3 Recommendations
7th Feb, 2019
Nabi Bouali
University Mustapha Stambouli of Mascara
It is the problems posed by science that necessitated the return of philosophy strongly in the twenty-first century
3 Recommendations
11th Feb, 2019
Sadjad Soltanzadeh
I think the distinction between science and philosophy is misleading. Scientists don't just do maths and lab works; they still need to avoid fallacies and make sound arguments; they still need to be aware of the assumptions underlying each key term or theory. Scientists also should think about the moral and social implications of their theories and products. Philosophers too need to make sure their empirical claims are scientifically valid..
2 Recommendations
11th Feb, 2019
Elvis Joseph Miti
University of Cape Town
Hi Nabi Bouali
Just wanted to know if it is possible to develop a scientific question without applying knowledge and skills of Logic and insights? I thought it is philosophy that enable science itself and than ask science questions. Bernard Lonergan theory of Knowledge, Insight and understanding provide more guidance on scientific thinking. What am I doing when I am knowing? For example.
2 Recommendations
13th May, 2019
Brad Jesness
a starting point for Enlightened Behavioral Science/ Human Ethology
Just for your information: There has been a thread with a similar subject matter going on for 3.5 years (MANY POSTS): https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory
You can go to my Profile --> Research --> Answers and find all my contributions there. I am more than skeptical about philosophy; I am most usually VERY negative about it and I provide good reasons and reasoning.
3 Recommendations
26th Aug, 2019
Soner Çetinkaya
Mediterranean Fisheries Research, Production and Training Institute, Antalya, Türkiye.
Not only in the 21st century, philosophy will contribute to the advancement of science in every era in which it is able to free the brains and idea.
3 Recommendations
26th Aug, 2019
Stephen I. Ternyik
Techno-Logos (Educatis.CH: Sharing knowledge among professionals.
Advancing contributions for the cognitive progress of scientific methodology, in the tradition of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, HvFoerster, to name some key approaches. I would also add new statistical learning theories for the computational method.
3 Recommendations
26th Aug, 2019
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
As I have alreday said, science without philosophy risks being blind and philosophy wiithout science risks being mere verbiage.Both are importarnt and relared to each other
2 Recommendations
26th Aug, 2019
Shakir Faris Tuleab
University of Anbar
Philosophy means understanding our reality and drawing lessons from the past. It helps us to develop ourselves and our communities for the better.
1 Recommendation
26th Aug, 2019
Difo Voukang Harouna
University of Maroua
From my point of view, as Ethic is a branch of philosophy, the role of philosophy should be to regulate and direct science towards human necessities for a sustainable life because:
"Science without conscience is but the ruin of the Soul"
François Rabelais
1 Recommendation
18th May, 2020
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
How did it happen that nature created on the planet Earth a being with consciousness of its existence (i.e. man)? Was there a divine purpose or a pure case of evolution? There are many answers to this question and there will probably always be many answers.
What is your opinion on this topic?
Please reply,
I invite you to discussion and scientific cooperation,
Thank you so much for participating in the discussion,
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
2nd Aug, 2020
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Everyone,
In the context of this discussion, I would like to add the following question: In which fields and disciplines have you noticed the great influence of philosophy on shaping new concepts and directions of scientific research development?
Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Please reply
What do you think about it?
Thank you very much and best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
2 Recommendations
17th Nov, 2020
Antonio Franco-Crespo
Escuela Politécnica Nacional
I think that the main contribution of philosophy can be to become the main gateway to ethics.
1 Recommendation
5th Jan, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Antonio Franco-Crespo,
Thank you for your response. You added an important point to our discussion on the influence of philosophy on the development of science in the 21st century. I think the same. In the future, through philosophy, there may be an increase in the importance of ethics in the development of scientific research and the use of its results, e.g. in terms of social environmental (ecological) responsibility.
Best regards,
Happy New Year 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
2 Recommendations
24th Jan, 2021
Celso Vargas
Costa Rican Institute of Technology (ITCR)
We can see in the IPCC approach to climate change a direct influence of Popper and Kuhn in understanding the field and also the way how current problems should be faced. The four report (2007) included an introduction to climate change from a philosophy of science perspective.
1 Recommendation
25th Jan, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Thank you for your participation in our discussion and for pointing to the problem of description and interpretation of progressive climate change from the perspective of the philosophy of science.
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
25th Jan, 2021
Celso Vargas
Costa Rican Institute of Technology (ITCR)
Dear Dariusz Prokopowics. Thank you so much for your comment. I mean something deeper. In Working Group 1 (WG1) of IPCC, you can trace the direct influence of Kuhn in the conception of the scientific community and the construction of the disciplinary matrix: the construction of the common language of the discipline, the role of the scientific community in evaluating the information provided by different sources and the definition of the criteria for accepting information; the role of refutation in the discipline; the way in which the problems are prioritized and the construction of the exemplars that show the promising of the strategy used and the progress achieved. My regards,
1 Recommendation
28th Jan, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Thank you for your comment, for continuing the discussion. I understand and support your point of view on this issue.
Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
29th Jan, 2021
Celso Vargas
Costa Rican Institute of Technology (ITCR)
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz: Thank you so much for your comment. My regards,
Celso
1 Recommendation
7th Feb, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Please, too. I am delighted with our cooperation on the Research Gate discussion forum. Your comments bring a lot of valuable content to our joint discussions.
Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
1 Recommendation
17th Mar, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
In the context of the above considerations on the impact of philosophy on science in the 21st century, the following question arises: Will the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic change the nature and / or importance of solving key global problems through research carried out with the use of more and more technologically advanced scientific research?
Thank you, Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
1 Recommendation
12th Sep, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
The development of science in the 21st century will be determined to a large extent by, inter alia, technological development and the creation of solutions to the problems of civilization development, including various crises that appear more and more often. From this discussion, another question arises: Does the meaning of philosophy for the development of science change in the twenty-first century or does philosophy continue to play the same role for the development of science as in previous centuries?
What do you think about this topic?
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
1 Recommendation
12th Sep, 2021
Gioacchino de Candia
Studio de Candia
Philosophy has long since lost its "momentum".
His contribution currently comes "down to chatter".
4 Recommendations
12th Sep, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz
It is not a mere coincidence that we can speak about a given epistemology for each science. As I use to say, an experiment run in an atmosphere of conceptual confusion rarely if ever clarifies anything. This, I think, shows the importance of philosophy, let alone epistemology in the scientific development. This was true in the past, now, and with all likelihood in the future
1 Recommendation
6th Oct, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz:
Philosophy plays a crucial role in the development of science, namely in the clarification of the concepts used in any science. In this vein the following book by L. Wittgenstein --- Philosophical Investigations --- is worth reading
1 Recommendation
6th Oct, 2021
Anthony St. John
Independent Scholar
6 October MMXXI
That's a really good question, and perhaps unanswerable.
I see Science in one corner and Philosophy in the other corner--opposite one and other.
Will they come out to fight each other, or to cooperate?
This quandary should be talked about more frequently.
Cordially...
ASJ
12 Recommendations
6th Oct, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Gioacchino de Candia,
Thanks for your answer to the question:
What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?
However, my view of the role of philosophy in science is much more optimistic.
Thank you, Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
8th Oct, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Science, in general, has to do with experimentation whereas philosophy is armchair speculation. Even so, they are not necessarily in opposition. Too often, philosophy and epistemology play a crucial role in the clarification of some scientific concept, for example, the concept of cognitive map in the psychological domain.
2 Recommendations
12th Oct, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Orlando M Lourenço,
Thanks for your comments and answers pointing to the many connections between the development of science and the philosophy relating to the essence and meaning of science, explaining new trends and directions of the development of science.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
1 Recommendation
12th Oct, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz,
It has been my pleasure to participate in your thread. Given that scientific facts and findings are there, not be checked or observed, but to be interpreted at the light of our conceptual lenses, then the role of philosophy in the scientific development has to be always taken in account. By the way, I do not believe in what I called the thesis of the "immaculate perception".
1 Recommendation
12th Oct, 2021
Brad Jesness
a starting point for Enlightened Behavioral Science/ Human Ethology
What may be called "philosophy" must either clearly refer to concrete referents (if only via TESTABLE hypotheses) OR clearly and concretely point to central, KEY, strictly empirical facts (OR possible facts). In either case : Good philosophy will refer (minimally) to inception-KEY, proximate, directly relevant, and observable overt phenomenon OR the "philosophy" will inevitably (and often perhaps quite seriously) lead you "off the track". It is very close to true (w/r philosophy and science) that GOOD PHILOSOPHY ___MAY___ be an integral part of whatever science in whatever science area you are working in. [ (Clue for Psychology: Do not forget about child development (ontogeny). Psychology, presently, is doomed pretend-science -- being a "science" ONLY because "they" say so; BUT this is certainly NOT true.) ]
But so also, it is nearly true, or quite possibly TRUE (in some excellent sense), that good philosophy IS SCIENCE. This point of view CANNOT be refuted. Knock yourselves out (and get ontology / meta-physics OUT OF YOUR HEADS) ; I have NO use for the word, "ontology" at all -- it has the science status of superstition).
1 Recommendation
18th Oct, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Orlando M Lourenço,
Thanks for the answer and for the kind words regarding this discussion.
Thank you, Regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
1 Recommendation
18th Oct, 2021
Rashmi Pramanik
Sambalpur University
This is the age of the computer the mobile phone, the awesome power modern technology. A click of the button or a press on the remote brings many pleasures, joys and headaches too into every home. Still, there is no peace at home, no harmony in society and no happiness for most people. Anomie, boredom, addiction to alcohol and do addition internet have reduced human life to meaningless existence in many towns and cities. Only philosophy can discuss and solve contemporary challenges created by (1) growing technological power (2) growing human greed (3) increasing poverty (4) alarmingly rising violence.In the 21st Century the school, the media and the NGO, civil society institution will shape human destiny. Philosophy will become the source of human values at both micro and macro levels.
3 Recommendations
18th Oct, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz,
It has been a pleasure to participate in your thread-
4 Recommendations
20th Oct, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
The significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century is enormous. As I have mentioned elsewhere, a scientific experiment run in an atmosphere of conceptual confusion, rarely, if ever, clarifies anything.:And here it comes the role of the paramount importance of philosophy, let alone epistemology, for running such experiments is an atmosphere of conceptual clarity.
1 Recommendation
6th Nov, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Rashmi Pramanik,
Yes, you showed the real importance of philosophy in the context of the present development of science and human existence.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
2 Recommendations
8th Nov, 2021
Victor Torvich
"Subsurface History of Humanity: Direction of History" book
I guess it is rare to have some particular philosopher or philosophical idea to impact science nowadays. In a more general sense, we could compare the impact of philosophy to the impact of education.
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." - Albert Einstein
I would argue that we could make a similar statement about philosophy's impact on scientists - Creative, critical, and broad-view thinking is what remains with scientists after one has forgotten particular philosophy.
A good discussion of the science and philosophy relationship is here - 1) Science and Philosophy: A Love–Hate Relationship ( https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10699-019-09619-2), and 2) Opinion: Why science needs philosophy (https://www.pnas.org/content/116/10/3948).
3 Recommendations
14th Nov, 2021
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Victor Torvich,
Yes. You added an interesting new thesis to our discussion by pointing out that it is rare these days for any particular philosopher or philosophical idea to influence science. In a more general sense, we can compare the influence of philosophy to the influence of education. In my opinion, your thesis is fully justified. I think like you on this topic. You gave a nice and good quote from Albert Einstein. You have translated Albert Einstein's thought in an interesting way into the question of the importance of philosophy for science.
Thank you very much,
Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
3 Recommendations
15th Nov, 2021
Nima A. Hussein
Philosophy cannot be dispensed with in the development of science education in the 21st century because philosophy represents the theoretical aspect of scientific education and that philosophy has changed from relying on traditional education and the emergence of e-learning and the Corona pandemic, which forced educational systems to resort to distance learning in addition to the entry of machines into education The development of artificial intelligence
2 Recommendations
15th Nov, 2021
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
"What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?"
In an ancient times all sciences were subsumed under the umbrella of philosophy- As time went by, sciences acquired, say, their respective independence from philosophy. This independence, however, was never radical and even today sciences and philosophy continue overall to be intertwined. It is not a mere coincidence that every science has its respective epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy..
1 Recommendation
10th Jan, 2022
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Although psychology largely detached itself from philosophy in the late 19th to early 20th century, philosophy has returned to the fold in contemporary Cognitive Science, "the study of thought, learning, and mental organization, which draws on aspects of psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and computer modelling." (Google’s English Dictionary).
And let's face it, contemporary String Theory is largely metaphysics for physicists.
3 Recommendations
7th Feb, 2022
Tekle Gemechu
Adama University, ASTU
Philosophy helps to develop and improve logical thinking of a scientist.
Thanks!
3 Recommendations
7th Feb, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Science is now largely detached from philosophy, Even so, the role of philosophy in the clarification of some scientific concept has no rival
2 Recommendations
7th Feb, 2022
Solomon Mengistie
Bahir Dar University
In any scientific activity, we always have knowledge that is taken for granted. This for-granted knowledge emanates from the kind of philosophy we adhered to. That is how philosophy is related to science.
1 Recommendation
6th Mar, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Solomon,
That's right. On the one hand, the development of science in recent decades is largely determined by technological progress and the use of new technologies in the process of improving research techniques. On the other hand, the role of research methodologists, classification of scientific disciplines, and the role of philosophy in formulating research questions is still significant.
Thank you,
Regards,
Dariusz
2 Recommendations
6th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Even though there is a big difference between science and philosophy, the latter can be of some help for the former in the sense that philosophy can help scientists thinking in logic terms.
3 Recommendations
26th Mar, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Orlando,
Yes. Since antiquity, philosophy has helped researchers and scientists to think, to formulate research concepts, to formulate holistic, transcendental theories of interpreting the surrounding reality, and to think in logical terms. Philosophy has been and continues to be helpful especially in explaining the essence of timeless, transcendental, universal, holistic, etc. theories of reality description in disciplines of science where the limited application of technical and other research instruments is objectively recognized, in which the incomplete cognitive possibility based on currently used technologies used to build technical research instruments. An example may be, on the one hand, the ultramicrocosm, i.e. the microworld contained in the molecules of atoms. On the other hand, an example may also be the ultramacrocosm, i.e. an attempt to explain the essence of the functioning of the universe, including worlds contained in other galaxies billions of light years away and possible, alternative, other universes.
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz
2 Recommendations
26th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz,
Thanks for your well taken and wise elaborations on the issue under discussion. As I posted in closely related thread, we do not need to be a philosopher in academic terms (e.g., to have a Ph D in philosophy) to be a scientist. However, philosophy, namely at the Greek ancient times, had not the stringent meaning that some attribute to it because it meant friend of wisdom. In this vein, both scientists and philosophers sensu lato sensus are friends of wisdom and knowledge and may be deeply intertwined. This means that philosophy as an activity that helps us thinking deeply may be used to develop scientific theory, such as scientific findings can be food for thought for philosophers. In this vein and per my understanding, the divide between philosophy and science represents more an artificial than a natural fracture. It is not a mere coincidence that great philosophers were also great scientists and great scientists were also great philosophers. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is a telling example of a great philosopher and a great scientist too.
1 Recommendation
26th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Due to theoretical advances, it seems that the marriage of science with philosophy is giving rise to an ever increasing divorce with the passage of time. But this divorce is more likely to be found in the scientism worldview than the science worldview.
As is easily recognized, there are problems, namely the existential ones, that cannot be solved only by science. So, philosophy in its initial formulation or meaning, friend of wisdom, will never be overcome, and the relation of philosophy to science will continue to give rise to either some consensus and much controversy.
1 Recommendation
26th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?
Science, if not misapplied, is one of the greatest friends of humanity. Even so, it cannot solve all the problems of the world, namely the existential ones, such us, Why live? Why be moral in an immoral world? Will it be that, here, both ethics and philosophy have something to say? In the vein, the work by Arthur Schopenhauer and Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, just to name two philosophers, is worth of reading and meditating.
1 Recommendation
26th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?
This question has been, sill is, and will probably be a highly controversial and debated topic by scientists, philosophers, epistemologists, just to name three examples. Answers to this question vary as a function of many independent variables. For example, a negative answer is more likely to appear in the scientism worldview than in the science-oriented perspective. I think of myself as someone who espouses the latter, but not the former. Therefore, I am of the opinion that philosophy helps to innovate and develop scientific theory. One of my intellectual masters was the Swiss biologist, malacologist, epistemologist and psychologist Jean Piaget. He is seen, for instance, as a brilliant scientist on the field of cognitive development. I am sure that this would not have been the case if he had not a deep philosophical background.
26th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?
As i see it, the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century is enormous. This my answer is mainly so because I espouse, not the scientism worldview, but rather a science-oriented perspective. To elaborate on this distinction goes beyond the scope of this post. To begin with, let me say that J. Piaget is rightly considered to be a remarkable researcher on many psychological issues, such as image, intelligence, memory, perception, consciousness, space, time, reality, causality, quality, quantity and so on.
As is known, some of these concepts (space, time, reality, causality) have been addressed in a speculative way by some philosophers, with Immanuel Kant being a telling example. For example, the concepts of space, time, reality, causality, quality, quantity were empirically investigated from a psychological perspective (e.g., how these concepts appear and evolve during the ontogenetic process) in well designed and replicable experiments carried by Jean Piaget, whose philosophical and epistemological background is undeniable.
What follows is a brief reference to his findings on the object permanence in well designed and replicable experiments. As I posted elsewhere, very often it is said that 'out of sight, out of mind'. Per my understanding, the Swiss biologist and psychologist Jean Piaget was the first researcher who ran well designed and replicable experiments that show unambiguously that newborns and children approximately below 18 months of age have not yet acquired the concept of object permanence. In other words, for these newborns and infants an object whatever ceases to exist once it vanishes from their sight. Needless to say, this was a counterintuitive finding in the sense that, before Piaget's seminal experiments on the object permanence, no one had ever realized that, for newborns and young infants, to be out of sight really means also out of mind. According to some researchers (e.g., Linda Smith), there may be occasions on which even some adults also fall prey to the idea that our of sight also means out of mind.
Contrary claims notwithstanding, J. Piaget was a remarkable researcher on many psychological issues, such as those referred to above. It is not a mere coincidence that he had discussed several scientific issues, such as time, space, causality and reality, just to mention four examples, with great thinkers of his time (e.g., Albert Einstein, Ilya Prigogine, Rolando Garcia, etc., etc., etc).
26th Mar, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
What is the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences in the 21st century?
As I see it, the significance of philosophy for the development of sciences before, during and probably after he 21st century was, is being, and will probably be enormous.
Let me start by saying that even though science raises and answers questions that may be food for thought for philosophers, and even change their worldview when they know of scientific findings. To illustrate the role of philosophy in the development of science, it suffices to say (sorry for the repetition) that Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development is, as it were, an empirical investigation of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, such as Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral development may be considered to be an empirical investigation of Kant's Critique of Practical Reason.
27th Mar, 2022
Sergey Viktorovich Pushkin
North Caucasus Federal University
"Philosophy of the Future" is a philosophical direction of the late XX - early XXI centuries, developing a new definition of the main question of philosophy in the spirit of pragmatism. Instead of "search for truth" - "what kind of future should we build?" If reflections on eternity defined the philosopher as a servant of truth, then talk about the future should serve to ensure that this truth triumphs.
The founder of the movement, Richard Rorty, is considered one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. But, his fame is often explained by criticism of his teachings. And also - the prediction of D. Trump's victory in the US presidential election, 18 years before the event itself.
Rorty is credited with reviving the philosophical school of American pragmatism and challenging the traditions of analytic philosophy. R. Rorty's philosophy is spoken of as a "humanistic view", "humanistic philosophy", Rorty's "liberal utopia". They call it a linguistic version of the philosophy of culture and the key to modernity.
"Philosophy of the Future" is aimed at reaching a consensus of various philosophical cultures, thanks to which a fundamentally new community and culture should have arisen, moreover, a new reality, the idea of ​​man and the meaning of life, which meets the requirement of modernity to think in a world without God, without truth and without man.
Stephen Hicks, critic of postmodernism, considers Richard Rorty, along with Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, etc. — to the leading postmodernists of the first generation. This is the generation of PhDs with their "high theories". Lee A. Wyatt includes Rorty's name among the preachers of postmodernism, along with the above philosophers, as well as writer Douglas Adams and MTV broadcasts. Alan Kirby, the author of the concept of "digimodernism" ("digital modernism" or "digital modernism"), a new paradigm of culture replacing postmodernism, writes that the representativeness of postmodernism depends on irony, which also "is the key to Richard Rorty's postmodern philosophy, where he inherits the intellectual landscape fenced off by grounds or metanarratives".
3 Recommendations
4th May, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
In this discussion, many arguments supporting the thesis about the great importance of philosophy for the development of science have been presented. Technical progress modifies the techniques of conducted research. Currently, the fourth technological revolution is taking place based on, inter alia, on the development and implementation of new technologies Industry 4.0 in various sectors of the economy. Therefore, the question arises: Can the ongoing technological progress change the meaning and role of philosophy in the context of the development of science, including the development of research techniques and conducted scientific research? What do you think about it?
Please reply,
Thank you very much,
Kind regards,
Dariusz
2 Recommendations
4th May, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Once, Albert Einstein claimed that Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” I wonder to what extent we can say that science without philosophy (lato sensu) risks being relatively blind, and philosophy without science risks being relatively empty. Be that as it may me, the relation between science and philosophy has been, still is, and will probably be a highly controversial and debated issue.
16th Jun, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Orlando,
Yes, that's right. The relationship between philosophy and science has been written for centuries, from antiquity. On the other hand, the controversy of this relationship results from the change in the nature of the correlation resulting from technological progress, the improvement of research techniques, thanks to which it is now possible to conduct scientific research, the implementation of which was impossible a few, a dozen, or several dozen or more years ago for various reasons, including certain technical limitations.
Thank you very much,
Kind regards,
Dariusz
16th Jun, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz
You are welcome. Good to know that you think that I am right. LIke many others, I think that what you say in the remaining part of your post is widely accepted by the large community of scientists and philosophers lato sensu.
All the best,
Orlando
19th Jun, 2022
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw
Dear Orlando,
Thanks for the answer. I am glad that we have a similar opinion on the importance and influence of philosophy on the development of science in the present twenty-first century. Well, despite the ongoing technological progress and the improvement of research instruments and techniques, the importance and influence of philosophy on the development of science in the present twenty-first century is still significant.
Thank you very much,
Kind regards,
Dariusz
2 Recommendations
19th Jun, 2022
Orlando M Lourenço
University of Lisbon
Dear Dariusz,
Thanks for your reply
As I posted in a another thread, the importance of philosophy on the development of science is welcome. My post follows.
"Philosophy (lato sensu) is always involved implicitly or explicitly in any scientific theory, such as science, namely its concepts of reality, time, space and causality rely at the heart of many philosophers' thinking. Immanuel Kant's theory is a telling example of this.
It is worth mentioning that to say that philosophy has nothing to do with science is in itself a philosophical statement. The following statement of the English philosopher Francis Bacon is one of my favorite statements that speak in favor of the role of philosophy (stricto sensu) in the clarification of evasive concepts that often pervade the so called "soft" sciences (e.g., human/social sciences). And here it goes the cogent idea of Francis Bacon: "Truth comes out of error more readily than out of confusion." This is, I think, food for thought for any scientist, however distinguished s/he may be. It might even be the case that famous scientists are, without intending it, deep philosophers in the broad sense of the word.
2 Recommendations

Similar questions and discussions

Does Adam Smith's "invisible hand" stop working toward the end of economic expansions?
Question
9112 answers
  • H.G. CallawayH.G. Callaway
Smith's idea of the “invisible hand” is the basis of the belief that large-scale government intervention and regulation of the economy is neither needed nor helpful. Smith put forward the notion of the invisible hand to argue that free individuals acting in a free economy, and making decisions that are primarily intended for their own self-interest, will, in fact, take actions that benefit society as a whole, even though such beneficial results were not the specific focus or purpose of those actions.
The central idea is that by means of the “invisible hand” purely self-interested actions and exchanges produce a large, unintended public good.
Quotations, Adam Smith,
The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter V, Digression on the Corn Trade, p. 540, para. b 43.
…THE INVISIBLE HAND…
[rich people] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species.
The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Part IV, Chapter I, pp.184-5, para. 10.
Every individual... neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it... he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. ---End quotations
Smith goes on to argue that intentional intervention by government regulation, although intended to protect the common good or benefit society as a whole, in practice is usually less effective and beneficial than is a freely operating market. In many cases, it is actually harmful to the people in general, because it denies them the benefits of the free market. This is especially true if the intervention produces a sort of political feeding frenzy of political favor to special interests.
The general prosperity and economic growth resulting from expanded international trade is part of the evidence for Smith thesis. However, though it is plausible to believe that something like Smith's “invisible hand” provides for the public good by way of growing prosperity in the initial stages of economic growth, it is considerably less plausible that liberalization and expanding markets or expansion of international trade will always produce a public good commensurate with the harm they cause.
This is not a purely economic argument. Instead it suggests a political evaluation. Economic expansions are also known to produce considerable economic dislocations, people go unemployed and entire industries wander away; not all participants benefit equally.
More basically, by shifting and creating wealth both within and between political societies, extensive economic expansions also cause political dislocations that require political adjustments.
The basic problem is that the shifts in economic interests brought about by rapid and extensive economic expansions proceed much more quickly than the slow and laborious, deliberative and political processes required for making needed adjustments and introducing regulations as may be required --to meliorate untoward effects.
In consequence, political societies tend to be thrown into deep political problems and conflicts tending toward factional infighting, in the attempt to control the political process in the interest of various, older or newly established economic interests. The continued pursuit of self-interest then produces something like “crony capitalism” (an age of the “robber-barons”) and social-political strife; and, at the worst, the result is uncontrolled conflict both within and between organized political societies.

Related Publications

Article
Full-text available
This is the second book by Baz that aims to show that a big chunk of contemporary philosophy is fundamentally misguided. His first book, When Words Are Called For: A Defense of Ordinary Language Philosophy (2012) adopted a therapeutic approach (in the Wittgensteinian style) to problems in contemporary epistemology, arguing that when properly though...
Article
Traducción de: Praxis and Action. Contemporary Philosophies of Human Activites Obra que analiza qué es la acción humana y cuáles son los diversos conceptos de praxis para la filosofía de la práxis (marxismo), la tradición existencialista, el pragmatismo y la filosofía analítica con el fin de explicar desde sus posturas, los diferentes problemas com...
Chapter
Ancient philosophy is “applied” in a number of ways, and for distinctive reasons, some perhaps rather different from those to be found in contemporary philosophy. In the case of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, one important basis for this lies in their views about the scope and purpose of philosophy. A second ground derives from their reflections on...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.