Conflict over "facts"

 Last time, I talked about the difference between philosophy and science.

In a word, philosophy explores the essence of the human "world of meaning". One science reveals the mechanism of the "world of facts".

Contrary to what many believe, the "world of meaning" actually precedes the "world of facts". There is an objective "world of facts", and humans do not attach "meaning" to it. On the contrary, the "world of facts" can exist for us only when we are caught in the antenna of our "world of meaning".

In that sense, philosophy supports science from its roots. Unless we understand the essence of the "world of meaning," we cannot know the "world of facts" in depth.

Conflict over "facts"

However, science usually does not have to think about such troublesome things.

For the time being, all of us recognize (believe) that things will fall if we let go, or that the earth is orbiting the sun. So you don't have to think about that "fact" every time, "No, this may not really be the absolute truth."

However, on the other hand, there are times when science has to think, "What is the fact in the first place?"

It is especially when what is considered a "fact" varies from person to person.

In the field called social sciences (economics, political science, sociology, history, pedagogy, etc.), this sometimes becomes a big problem.

For example, in the world of pedagogy and sociology, there are people who point out the "facts" of children's "decline in academic ability" through various scientific (statistical) surveys. But on the other hand, some argue that there is no such "fact".

Why does that happen? One of the reasons is that there is a difference in what is "scholastic ability" depending on the person.

In other words, they are living in different "worlds of meaning". Therefore, even in the "world of facts", they have completely different perceptions.

At that time, we need to explore the essence of the "meaning" of "what is academic ability in the first place". It is necessary to find that "common understanding". Otherwise, pedagogy and sociology will continue to endlessly confront and confuse.

The philosophy of exploring the "essence" of the "world of meaning" must always be the foundation of social science.

What is "love" in the first place?

No, even in the so-called hard science world, such as physics and brain science, philosophy still needs to support its foundation.

For example, I once read a lot of papers and books about "Science of Love", but at that time I thought "that?".

As I said last time, when a person is in love, chemical substances such as phenylethylamine, dopamine, and oxytocin are released from the brain.

However, as far as I read, it seems that there is a gap between the brain scientists who are studying romance in what makes them fall in love in the first place.

Some people thought it was almost the same as "love". Also, some people equated it with "sexual desire." In this way, what is "love" varies from person to person, so the results of the research seemed to vary considerably.

At that time, brain scientists also need to face the essence of that "meaning", asking "what is love in the first place?" Otherwise, the brain science of love will continue to be confused, as each one will study the love that they have in mind.

In short, without the "philosophy of love" first, the "science of love" would not really be possible either.

Of course, science does not always need philosophy. The scholarship of physics, which deals with what seems to be the same "fact" by all means, does not often require philosophy.

However, if scientists sometimes wonder, "What? What is this fact that I am studying in the first place?", That is when philosophy comes into play.

Does Philosophy Guide Science?

Another thing I would like to talk about is the philosophy as the foundation of science from a slightly different perspective.

The progress of modern science and technology is remarkable. The benefits cannot be overemphasized.

However, on the other hand, "you can do ◯◯" does not necessarily mean "you can do ◯◯" immediately.

For example, a nuclear power plant.

Is it okay for us human beings to build many nuclear power plants on this earth just because we have the science and technology of nuclear power generation?

Alternatively, technologies related to bioethics such as cloning and genetic manipulation.

The movie "Island" starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson, released in 2005, features cloned humans "bred" for organ transplantation. They unknowingly live in isolation facilities, and when the time comes, they are taken out of the facility for organ transplants.

It does not mean that such a thing will not happen in the future.

But can it really be said to be "good"?

The recent development of neuroscience poses similar problems to us.

For example, it is now possible for humankind to explosively enhance brain functions such as memory by using a drug called a smart drug. It is called neuro-enhancement.

But is that really "good"?

If so, how much? If not, why?

Science alone cannot answer these questions. Because this is literally a matter of the world of "meaning" and "value". So these are essentially philosophical questions.

Of course there is no absolute answer. But philosophy tries to find answers to these questions that can be "commonly understood." And with that "answer," sometimes it is necessary to point to the destination of science.

In this way, we came back to the question "What is philosophy?" I talked about in Part 1 of this series.

Philosophy, it reveals the "essence" of various things. The essence of love, the essence of human beings, the essence of words, the essence of education, the essence of good society ...

What we call "philosophical thinking" in this series is a way of thinking that reveals the "essence" of these things.

Just as science reveals the mechanism of the "world of facts" through observations and experiments, philosophy also has its own way of revealing the essence of the "world of meaning." As I said before, philosophy has thoroughly refined its way of thinking for 2500 years.

From the next time, I would like to convey the "mystery" of that thought step by step from the beginning.