Topics Profession

Question I am a (first year) graduate student interested in the philosophy of science and of biology. I have no formal training in natural science. Assuming that I do a PhD in this area how important is it to get a formal grounding in science and what's a good way to go about getting it?

Accepted:
November 22, 2006

Comments

This is a difficult question. Different philosophers of science have different opinions regarding how much background in science one needs to do good philosophy of science. In the olden days, less scientific background was needed than is the case today. A great deal of philosophy of science today presumes considerable scientific literacy. However, it is frequently not the kind of literacy that is especially fostered by taking science courses or reading science textbooks.

Furthermore, different philosophers of science will specialize in different areas. Some areas require less technical knowledge of science, others more. Someone who works on the philosophical ramifications of relativistic quantum field theory obviously needs to know a good deal about relativistic quantum field theory. On the other hand, someone who works on the philosophical ramifications of 19th century electromagnetic field theory does not need to know about relativistic quantum field theory. But she needs to know about 19th century electromagnetic field theory.

It seems to me that your best course is to see what background you need in order to work on the questions that interest you. As you read philosophy of science, you will find yourself needing to know some science in order to understand it or to proceed further with your research. When that happens, take the opportunity to read around in the area that you find yourself needing to learn. You may find a philosophy book or article that will fill in the necessary background. That's ideal. When that doesn't happen, work in the history of science (or by historically minded scientists) may present the material you need from a "history of ideas" vantage point that will be philosophically provocative.

If you make a career of philosophy of science, you will constantly be finding yourself needing to fill in your scientific knowledge on some topic or other. That is often a lot of fun. As long as you have enough general science background to be able to do that, then you will be in fine shape. On the other hand, if you do not have enough of a basic scientific background to do that, then it will be difficult for you to fill in the gaps in your knowledge as needed. Philosophy of science may then not be the best field for you.