Science, philosophy, technology.

Good post on why we don't need "intelligent design," by MrsDrP over at Marriage is a Vocation.  I'm going to keep an eye on that one, as she and I seem to be interested in similar stuff.

I noted in the comments that science, philosophy, and technology are three separate fields of human intellectual achievement, often confused by careless or ignorant people.

It is a mistake to say that they inform each other.  Rather, the chain goes like this:

science ----------->  philosophy --------------> technology

What we learn about the world and ourselves from science must inform our philosophy.  No philosophical system that ignores data about the real world can be complete, although some can be complete in a theoretical sense and even those can prove useful (e.g. Euclidean geometry, which is entirely made up --- have you ever seen two parallel lines?) 

Then, our philosophy must guide us in deciding how we use our knowledge --- that is, our technology.  To put it bluntly, there are some things we should do and some things we should not do, and neither technology nor science can tell you which is which.  Technology without philosophy is capricious and dangerous --- who knows what you will get?  Technology informed by an evil philosophy will likely produce evil works.  Only technology that is informed by a morally correct philosophy can be trusted to produce good works.

The chain does, in the end, come full circle:

  science ---> philosophy ---> technology ---> science ...

because improved technology (e.g. better microscopes) gives us more ways to learn about the world.

Confusion among the roles of these three fields can royally screw up public policy.  For example, many people are very concerned about technologies that they consider to be morally evil.  Take cloning of human beings.   Almost everyone thinks either that human cloning is universally morally wrong, or that using human clones for some particular, envisionable purpose is morally wrong.  In other words, people share widespread agreement that some technology associated with human cloning should not be done, even if we figure out how to do it.   

But then, a lot of either careless or ignorant people, depending on what side they're on, turn around and make one of the following logically incorrect statements, which are really two sides of the same coin:

• It is wrong to study the possibility of human cloning, either theoretically or through animal studies.
• People who want to ban human cloning are anti-science and have no business being called scientists.

Cloning, whether of humans or animals, is not science.   It is a family of technologies.  It is something you do (and therefore something you can choose to do or not do). It is not something you know.

Choosing not to learn or know something is willful ignorance --- which is sometimes neutral and often useful, but not in general virtuous.    This should not be confused with choosing not to do something.  The goodness of that kind of choice depends, of course, on the wisdom of doing the thing in question.  Just because doing something is called "bad" does not mean that learning things about it is wrong.  And even if the "something" has an aura of the scientific about it, it is not automatically okay to do it --- not in the same way that it's automatically okay to increase knowledge through science. 

That's because if the "something" is technology, it's NOT science.  I happen to believe that all science is an inherent good, and that its goodness is measured by its accuracy.

Here's the short, sound-bite version, ready to rattle off to the next careless or ignorant person you meet:

• Science tells us what is and what we can and can't do.
• Philosophy explains why and what we should and shouldn't do.
• Technology is doing.

Up till now I haven't invoked religion at all.  In all of the above, the philosophy mentioned can be a wholly secular one that is informed by nothing other than science, i.e., by data gathered from the natural world. 

Christians have to add a fourth field:  revelation.  Revelation, like science, informs philosophy.  It is data that is not gathered, but given, by supernatural means (although it can concern the natural world).  Revelation and science are two independent means of "inquiry," so to speak.  For Christians, then,

science AND revelation -----> philosophy -----> technology ----> science

This circle only closes partly, because we can't use our technology to get more and better revelation, only more and better science.

A complete Christian philosophy has to account for everything we know from both science and revelation.   A Catholic philosophy includes the Tradition of the Church and in that aspect is, we believe, something more than a human philosophy, because it is (in that aspect) protected by the Holy Spirit.  It must, of course, include an answer to the question "What if there's an apparent contradiction between science and revelation?" and it has to include a moral code that tells us how our technology can be used for the benefit of humankind and for God's greater glory.

There's nothing wrong, incidentally, with trying to come up with a philosophy that is informed only by science or only by revelation.  It may be a useful rhetorical exercise, and it may serve our ends in convincing people who accept only one or the other to adopt our program of technology.  But we must be aware at all times of the limitations of such a system.

Comments

[Kevin J Jones]

Well, there are also philosophical presuppositions necessary for scientific inquiry, like the knowability of the universe, the ability for the human mind to understand and describe it, and so forth.

Incidentally, many neuroscientists seem bent on discrediting human agency, which they don't seem to realize will undermine the whole scientific project. See Tom Wolfe's essay "Sorry, Your Soul Just Died."

I would also add that there are ethical presuppositions for scientific inquiry as well. There are the obvious ones, like not faking data or stealing a colleague's work. But I think a certain discipline of mind and spirit is also necessary for such inquiry. Any awareness of that preparation is only left implicit in scientific practice, and I think that's a bad thing.

There is still a nasty Cartesian tendency in scientific thought to think of the human mind as some discarnated angelic thing which only need follow some logical method to reach knowledge. Christianity, with pre-modern philosophers, would note that mental excellence and knowledge requires more than simply following a procedure.

[Bill]

I'd like to know what Technologies derive from revelation. Inquisition torture devices?