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.