What is Philosophy of Science Good For?

The first of occasional columns on science and philosophy by Massimo Pigliucci.

“There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”
(Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, 1995)

I venture to say that few philosophers seriously question the usefulness of their own pursuit, and philosophers of science are probably as self-confident as any. But the question rightly asked by the public at large (when it actually pays attention to such matters), and in particular by scientists, is: what is philosophy of science good for? I think there are at least three, somewhat interrelated, areas of inquiry for a philosopher interested in science. These are: firstly, investigations into the very nature of science; secondly, the analysis of key scientific concepts as used by scientists; and lastly what could be called ‘science criticism’ – despite the obvious and often unwelcome smell of postmodernism-gone-bad that such a label may carry.

I will eventually devote more than one column to each of these three branches of philosophy of science, but let’s take a brief tour of the whole subject first, beginning with the study of the nature of science.

This article is available to subscribers only.

If you are a subscriber please Log In to your account.

To buy or renew a subscription please visit the Shop.

If you are a subscriber you can contact us to create an account.


This site uses cookies to recognize users and allow us to analyse site usage. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy.