Is Science born from Philosophy? And so, what about Quine's anti-foundationalism? Is it correct?

Comments

Interesting! Originally,

Interesting! Originally, what we might call "science" was done by those referred to as "philosophers." So, the preSocratics (like Thales) investigated the structure of nature / reality and, in doing so, he would have found it very odd if asked whether his "science" stemmed from philosophy --as there would not have been a possible separation. If we move toward the late 20th century and we come to Quine, he contended that science did not require a philosophical foundation. In fact, he rather wanted to subordinate philosophy to science (the natural or physical sciences in particular; in terms of psychology he was, like his friend B.F. Skinner, a radical behaviorist). Quine came to concede that philosophy of science might be prior to (conceptually antecedent to) the natural sciences, and this was (in my view) on the right track but needed to go further. I do not think you can have science without making all sorts of assumptions (that are properly considered philosophical) about the nature of the world, about inquiry / observations / the concept of evidence / ideas about the status of logical entailments and legitimate forms of inquiry, and so on. Someone who is very good on this topic (including replying to Quine and his progeny) is Roger Trigg. He has a great book: Beyond Matter; Why Science Needs Metaphysics (2015).

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Philosophy, Science