I suppose what I'm indirectly asking is whether you feel that certain scientific facts may provide some amount of insight into more philosophical arguments (and vice versa)?
As Kierkegaardian as I would like to be, I'm afraid I still harbor modern, even borderline...gulp...Hegelian tendencies, which shall be reflected in the following discussion. However, I believe I can spin my modern tendencies in a MacIntyrean direction, so as to allay any betrayal of dear Kierkegaard...so, here goes.
I believe that a large part of your answer involves digging into your own assumptions about ontology/epistemology. "Scientific facts", and more specifically, "facts", assumes traditions from the late 17th-early 18th centuries, involving characters such as Locke and Hume. If you assume "facts" necessitate experimentation and experience, then yes, scientific method and philosophy intersect at the corners of Locke and Hume. In fact, one could easily argue (keeping in mind pre-Socratic philosophy) that "science" as we know it has always been in the realm of philosophy.
However, I would also issue a warning in assuming strong relationship between the two fields. The general public takes for granted the modern idea that "fact" denotes experience and experimentation, while also adopting modern tendencies to jettison any withstanding tradition in favor of experience and experimentation. Remember that philosophy offers a much wider perspective of reality (or "fact") than the narrow field of vision projected Locke and Hume. Your example of Quantum Mechanics brings to mind more abstract notions of viewing the world, as we have no immediate experience with quantum particles. Thus, to assume Quantum Mechanics intelligible, one ought at least give Aristotelean metaphysics a try. Both are abstract notions of reality based on observation, yet coming from two divergent worldviews. My point is that philosophy and science can easily dialogue, as long as both understand their assumptions and can maneuver in some common ground. Otherwise, you might be trying to comment on a Hindi riddle in Spanish, where both sides think the entire world speaks their native tongue.
I think I would probably agree with your concluding paragraph, and that a number of other scientists would as well. I also had some further thoughts as I continued to mull over the two scenarios and my objections.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I don't know if either is quite as impossible as I had previously assumed, or rather they may be impossible for slightly different reasons than those I stated originally. I felt I should clarify that for purposes of intellectual honesty.
Second, the "same but different" scenarios in both thought experiments got me to wondering (first from a scientific perspective) just how possible it is to change only one thing without influencing others. It was sort of a butterfly effect/determinism line of thought as well, which I find interesting from the standpoints of both science and philosophy. It also led to the larger question of the extent to which hypothetical or contrary-to-fact scenarios are useful as a rhetorical device and their possible pitfalls.
Finally, my consideration about hypotheticals led to a reformulation and clarification of my initial gut response. I think in the end I agree more with one of the cited criticisms in the article that such "same but different" scenarios often run the risk of obscuring rather than illuminating and can lead us on with veiled intuition-based arguments rather than the intended logical rigor. (Of course I still understand they may have the purpose of sparking thought or debate, like a parable or midrash...)
-Thommy