The previous two “sales pitches,” as my senior brother put it, attacked only and defended not at all. In fact, philosophy of science and technology of course has its fatal weaknesses. What I want to emphasize is that anyone “can,” “may as well,” and “might as well” do philosophy of science and technology; however, I have not said that it is the most suitable choice for everyone. In fact, if a certain kind of work can be done well by anyone, then it is probably mediocre.
The advantage of philosophy of science and technology is precisely its most fatal flaw—being too miscellaneous. Philosophy of science and technology runs through all branches of philosophy and connects the subjects of both the humanities and the sciences; that is all well and good, but it also makes philosophy of science and technology prone to losing its direction and failing to grasp the main point.
In the history of philosophy, philosophy of science and technology has not yet established its own standing. Logical positivist philosophy of science did flourish for a time, but their effort to transform philosophy through science did not succeed, and they also did not carry out any profound reflection on science itself.
And among philosophers of science outside logical positivism, although there were indeed some “heavyweights” like Kuhn, compared with other “philosophers,” the depth and force of their thought are really far too lacking. Popper may count as one of the most famous among philosophers of science, but compare him with someone like Wittgenstein? — Can that really compare? Even if philosophers of science are not compared with the very first-rate philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Heidegger, but only with those a notch below—such as the Vienna School, the Marburg School, the Frankfurt School, and the like—they are still far behind. What I mean here is the sense of shock brought about by the weight and profundity of their thought. When reading certain philosophical classics, you feel a kind of irresistible pressure, as if you cannot breathe, just like standing before the sea and deeply sensing your own insignificance, letting the waves strike your soul. But when I read some literature in philosophy of science, I have never had this kind of experience. Of course, some discussions in philosophy of science are more technical, while others are extremely plain and accessible; this is an advantage, but also a huge weakness.
Unlike branches of philosophy such as political philosophy, ethics, and aesthetics, philosophy of science does not possess a tradition or lineage of scholarship connected by one transcendent philosopher after another and by volume after volume of immortal classics, nor has it established a clear academic paradigm. The situation for natural philosophy and philosophy of technology is just as bad. When Wu says that natural philosophy must be revived, he means that it has in fact not yet been revived. Philosophy of technology does show some signs of rising, but as Wu said, Europe may be somewhat better; in the United States, philosophy of technology is very marginal, and there are few masters.
Here, of course, there is also an advantage, as Wu said: in these fields Chinese scholars have a very good chance of catching up with international standards, because international standards are really not that great either. Of course, this “advantage” is nothing more than self-comfort. Since the international level is not very high anyway, even if we catch up, it would be no great matter; moreover, we still have not caught up yet.
In short, it is understandable that philosophy of science and technology is looked down upon and despised by other departments and research groups; philosophy of science and technology is indeed far less well-grounded than they are.
Philosophy of science and technology is not only despised by philosophers, but also by scientists; that too is reasonable. Earlier I mentioned Feynman’s famous remark: “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” That is true. Even if I say that anthropology, after all, still has some meaning for human beings, that meaning seems in fact rather limited. Moreover, compared with those great scientists, the credibility of what philosophers of science and sociologists of science say about what science is must be greatly discounted. Although we can say “the observer sees clearly while those involved are confused,” “one cannot see the true face of Mount Lu because one is in the mountain,” and so on, to support perspectives outside science, this cannot conceal the passivity of philosophers of science before scientists. Scientists are not gods, but philosophers of science are even less so; before scientists, philosophers of science certainly should not think too highly of themselves.
In short, “philosophy of science” stands between science and philosophy, “science humanities” stands between science and the humanities; it tries to bridge both sides, but in fact the result is often that it pleases neither side…
It can be seen that I am an honest salesman: I’ve spoken about the benefits, and I do not conceal the drawbacks.
Of course, what is a drawback for some may well be a benefit for others. For example, the youthfulness and shallowness of philosophy of science and technology become benefits for those who lack ambition and those who possess lofty ambition. For those who lack ambition and merely hope to scrape a living in academia, philosophy of science and technology looks easy to get into, and its prospects are not bad; while for those with lofty ambitions, what they are looking at is the bright future of philosophy of science and technology.
I have also mentioned before that the whole history of Western philosophy begins with natural philosophy and ends with philosophy of technology (according to Heidegger, modern technology is the completed form of metaphysics), with philosophy of science as the thread running through it. One may say that the problems philosophy of science and technology faces are both the oldest and the most immediate. The importance of philosophy of science in the whole of philosophy is at least no less than that of political philosophy, ethics, or aesthetics, and so on. The youth of philosophy of science and technology has complicated historical reasons, but it certainly is not because it is unimportant. The green, unripe child will one day grow full wings and stand on its own. From any angle, the prospects of philosophy of science and technology are broad and bright.
As the saying goes, heroes emerge in troubled times. In those scholarly traditions where order has long been established, there are certainly no shortage of scholars who devote themselves to deep study, but it is not easy for a philosopher who can stand alone, seize the day, and create a new world to emerge; whereas in this disorderly and chaotic age of philosophy of science and technology (including natural philosophy, philosophy of technology, and even science studies), sooner or later a host of contenders will arise and heroes will come forth in abundance. If one has the ambition to contend for supremacy under heaven, philosophy of science and technology is probably the most suitable stage.
To be continued.
October 3, 2007
Latest Comments
- Suíyuán
2007-10-05 00:00:53 Anonymous 124.17.16.94
Heh heh heh, nice one! Little junior brother’s sales pitch this time is quite good—first build up, then hold back. I hope your kind words come true, and that Peking University’s philosophy of science and technology can attract more “people with lofty ambitions”!
However, if a “person with lofty ambitions” hopes to become an outstanding philosopher, and if he throws himself into philosophy of science and technology, where exactly does the field’s own “great future” lie? I suppose that still needs to be further argued through “the relationship between science and philosophy.” Otherwise, if he falls into a shallow little pond, even if he can “stand out on his own,” his splendor will be rather limited.
Heh heh, looking forward to little junior brother’s sequel……
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply