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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Dariusz Prokopowicz Stephen Andrew Linstead Daniel Goldman Orlando M Lourenço Fateh Boutekkouk

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).

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. Preprint Reforming Science

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.

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

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz

This Question seems little different from the long-running thread (of 3 years):

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_philosophy_help_to_innovate_and_develop_scientific_theory#view=5c4e84394921ee215f4ce44d

I encourage all to read my Answers there and some of others as well.

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

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

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

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

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 .

It is the problems posed by science that necessitated the return of philosophy strongly in the twenty-first century

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Philosophy means understanding our reality and drawing lessons from the past. It helps us to develop ourselves and our communities for the better.

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