Recently, I’ve come across science-oriented individuals who posit that philosophy and science are separate; that one – science – could flourish without the other – philosophy. Do they not realize that science is what philosophers used to call “natural philosophy?” Do they not realize that science forms its basis in the realms of empirical philosophy and mathematics (which itself forms its basis in logic)?
Inductive reasoning, the sacred cornerstone of all science, is a philosophical concept. Theoretical science – the concept of connecting ideas from multiple understandings – is philosophizing.
Does this mean that science should bow down to philosophy as the superior form of obtaining wisdom? No. In fact, science can affect the understanding of both itself and philosophy. However, it’s a limited methodology – bound by philosophical concepts that survive very well due to their accuracy and usefulness. Science is a tool that was formed by philosophy to develop wisdom, just as math is a tool.
Philosophy is not a tool or method. Philosophy is a journey. A journey toward wisdom.
I use this analogy to better understand the claim that philosophy isn’t, inherently, a correct way to obtain wisdom, because it’s true that there is no starting point, path, or finish line innate in philosophy, but there are better and worse ways to do it.
If philosophy is a journey, then knowledge is the vehicle and rationality the path. If knowledge is the vehicle, then science is the car ; if rationality is the path, then logic is the quality and direction of the road.
A scientist has to philosophize, but a philosopher doesn’t have to be scientific.
A logician has to philosophize, but a philosopher doesn’t have to be logical.
However, a good and correct philosopher is scientific and logical.
The Spy Machine 