Philosophy Now Forum

This is why I am curious about the philosophy of chemistry:
My youngest daughter enjoys studying chemistry and looks forward to majoring in it in college. It bores me silly, so I asked her why she chooses chemistry. She told me she likes chemistry because "chemists have so much fun; it's all the cool people - the ones who like to get high and blow things up."

The History of the Philosophy of Science is the trendy thing to study at American philosophy departments. When the natural sciences as we know them were just figuring out what they are, they were called "natural philosophy", and were developed and practiced by the philosophers of their time. Historically, our sciences are an outgrowth from philosophy, and still carry with them close ties to philosophy. Even though the sciences are more familiar to people today and many people hear philosophical questions in scientific contexts and say, "That's just science," the truth is, priority goes to philosophy.

That all said, especially when dealing with more abstract and theoretical questions, there is no distinct line between "science" and "philosophy". Distinctions between physics and philosophy departments may make sense form the point of view of college administration, but not from the point of view of the subject matters. They bleed into each other.

Noumena - I think the difference is level of specificity. Philosophers of science will address these questions in a general sort of way, drawing general conclusions that are fairly universal for all sciences, while philosophers of biology will look at more specific instances. Again, these are not clear distinctions - you really can't and shouldn't try to do one without being informed by the discussions in the other. But, "philosophy of science" and "philosophy of biology" are useful labels.

Second, I don't have the time or space to say much on your description of philosophical methods, but I will say, it's overly simplistic.

Third, there are also many other questions which can and should be addressed by the philosophy of a particular science. One important that I'm surprised hasn't been raised deal with the social/political/ethical implications and effects of the disciplines. While most people, in my experience, think of the metaphysical, logical, and epistemological questions of the philosophy of science, relatively few think of the ethical questions. Chemistry has had a profound effect on our world and our understanding of it, and the social/ethical side of those changes are rich grounds for philosophical work.

Hi RA,
Sorry this bit lost me.

RachelAnn wrote:...Second, I don't have the time or space to say much on your description of philosophical methods, but I will say, it's overly simplistic.

Who's description is simplistic?
a_uk

RachelAnn wrote:... the ones who like to get high and blow things up."

Sounds like a Who concert.

One important that I'm surprised hasn't been raised deal with the social/political/ethical implications and effects of the disciplines. While most people, in my experience, think of the metaphysical, logical, and epistemological questions of the philosophy of science, relatively few think of the ethical questions. Chemistry has had a profound effect on our world and our understanding of it, and the social/ethical side of those changes are rich grounds for philosophical work.

I think this was true perhaps 20 years ago but there's a lot of work being done on the social/political/ethical implications of science. One problem might be that you are looking in the wrong place. As a discipline, philosophy of science is still mainly interested in metaphyscical and epistemological issues but there are are other branches of philosophy like bioethics and applied ethics that are specifically driven by the ethical implications of science. Also, the social and political implications you are interested in are the main focus of sociologists of science, including SSK, social constructivists and actor-network theorists.

Philosophy of chemistry is a young discipline but it's growing rapidly. There's a very good introduction to the subject by van Brakel although it was published in 2000 so it may be a little out of date by now.

Hi RA,
Sorry this bit lost me.
RachelAnn wrote:
...Second, I don't have the time or space to say much on your description of philosophical methods, but I will say, it's overly simplistic.

Who's description is simplistic?
a_uk

Thanks for pointing out that burr in the backside. WHAT A MESS.
I was writing an email, bantering with an RPI friend as I was working the other screen writing the Philosophy Now post. Multitasking does not suit me -- it appears I can only do one thing at a time.

There's a very good introduction to the subject by van Brakel although it was published in 2000 so it may be a little out of date by now.

Thank you for this reference to van Brakel.

I think we can distinguish one part of science from philosophy; that being the raw data.

RA,
Just goes to confirm what I've always believed, " "multitasking", the ability to do lots of things badly". Although I'm being harsh as I do understand "multitasking" as "the ability to rapidly change state". Something that many appear to interpret as "doing lots of things at once"
a_uk

RachelAnn wrote:This is why I am curious about the philosophy of chemistry:
My youngest daughter enjoys studying chemistry and looks forward to majoring in it in college. It bores me silly, so I asked her why she chooses chemistry. She told me she likes chemistry because "chemists have so much fun; it's all the cool people - the ones who like to get high and blow things up."

Ask her if she's been watching and inspired by Breaking Bad. If not, suggest it to her, it's a good series.

RachelAnn wrote: Noumena - I think the difference is level of specificity. Philosophers of science will address these questions in a general sort of way, drawing general conclusions that are fairly universal for all sciences, while philosophers of biology will look at more specific instances. Again, these are not clear distinctions - you really can't and shouldn't try to do one without being informed by the discussions in the other. But, "philosophy of science" and "philosophy of biology" are useful labels.

Third, there are also many other questions which can and should be addressed by the philosophy of a particular science. One important that I'm surprised hasn't been raised deal with the social/political/ethical implications and effects of the disciplines. While most people, in my experience, think of the metaphysical, logical, and epistemological questions of the philosophy of science, relatively few think of the ethical questions. Chemistry has had a profound effect on our world and our understanding of it, and the social/ethical side of those changes are rich grounds for philosophical work.

While all natural sciences have always interacted with methaphysical and epistemological questions, and those questions are indeed the reasons why many people choose scientific education or carreers, ethical questions in different sciences were raised (should have been raised?) at different points in history: For chemistry, probably when the first chem weapons were developed in the early 1900s, for physics when the first nukular weapons were developed (1940s) and biology when they started engineering the genes (or perhaps with bioweapons? which would be in the middle ages, if not earlier).