Philosophy of Science

Philosophy of Science is not like a history of science. It is not a chronicle of various advancements throughout the history. It is not a psychology or sociology of science because it does not aim to describe the psychological traits of the inventors or scientific geniuses. It is not concerned with looking to various factors that determine scientific discoveries or the effects of science to the society. These all are the other descriptions of Philosophy of science are not and lead to its deeper meaning. To explain this, first, we must be aware of the fact that various sciences make claims about the nature of the universe and human beings. Thus, scientist use concepts such as law of nature, cause and effect, predictions, hypothesis and so forth. 

What Philosophy of Science does is to examine these concepts and to ask questions about them. If science claim that the universe is governed by law of nature such as gravity, the Philosophy of Science might ask “What is the law of nature? How do we know if there really are laws of nature?”

Does science really objective? Does law of nature relevant? These are some concerns in philosophy of Science. The first query may entail that there is something biases in science or subjective in a sense. But, science may justify its objectivity. Science is objective in the sense that before it will be proven of something, it has undergone the process of experimentation using empirical data to justify its validity. However, Philosophy of Science is trying to question it because there is something subjective in giving conclusion for some scientist for they might be guided by their common interest.

On the other hand, “Is there law of nature?” Yes, there is and it is relevant to the status quo for it guides us in giving predictions. If there is no law of nature, science as a body of knowledge will collapse and everything that we have now particularly the advancement in technology will be dumped into futile. Thus, this law of nature is absolute and universal.