Science, Philosophy, and Technology

As a research scientist myself nothing gets under my skin so deeply as hearing fellow scientists disparaging philosophy. Many times one hears it from the so called “popularizers” of science who spend their days not on the bench, or in the lab or the field actually practicing science, but rather on the couch or in front of a screen dispensing their wisdom upon the unwashed masses. These are the same “scientists” who praise the virtue of the technologists (who also despise philosophy for some reason(s) that make(s) no sense), and think science and technology are one and the same discipline, brothers in arms against the dark forces of religion and mysticism that threaten to overwhelm the land. In addition to their disgust with philosophy the other thing these pop-sci paragons share with the techno-elites is an ego that must constantly be fed a steady diet of adulation, praise, and recognition.

Within the sciences themselves, among actual practicing scientists, these people have about as much street cred as Joey Fatone. To think that they could have anything useful to say about a topic as deep, rich, and diverse as philosophy is the height of hubris. They barely have anything useful to say about their supposed topics of specialty in science. Most scientists are lovers of philosophy because most/all scientists are critical thinkers. You cannot practice critical thinking without practicing philosophy. Research scientists spend their days doing philosophy. In a sense they are the practical application of philosophy that these dead-enders are always railing philosophy for not having. It is ironic that those who protest the most about the uselessness of philosophy are those that have benefited the most from it’s actual application.

I suspect that the technologists despise philosophy because it provides no easy answers. After all that is the core of their business model. Making life easier for everyone is what they set out to do every day. Too hard to walk down the street to pick up a doughnut, here’s an app that will do it for you with the tap of a button. Can’t be bothered to remember your anniversary, here’s a calendar that takes care of all that painful keeping track of things for you. Truly this is the end goal of the never ending (and never successful) quest for artificial intelligence. Why bother with thinking at all when we have a computer that can do it for you?

It is true that many scientists privately and publicly reject the insights that only philosophy can provide. They just can’t see a need for the purely intellectual pursuit of philosophy when their model of hypothesis generation and experimentation has seemed to produce so much more tangible progress.

That said it seems obvious to me that even scientists who reject philosophy as meaningless or useless still hold philosophical positions and use them as a guide in their work. Specifically they accept most or all of the ethical and moral principles of philosophy. Things like the importance of the pursuit of truth, the inherent value of Justice, the belief in the fundamental goodness of people. Most importantly I think scientists all share a fundamental belief that the reason they do what they do is primarily to help others. To make the world a better place and all that hippy-dippy, feel good, rah-rah stuff. If you were to confront the philosophical naysayer scientists about this I am certain they would object or find an answer as to why they do science that does not default to ethical principles. I suggest they would be either incorrect or lying.

Most of the modern day technologists also reject philosophy as useless. The exception being stoicism, which they have rebranded minimalism and have embraced, misapplied, and corrupted to the point of it no longer being recognizable as anything like its original conception. As I have written about previously stoicism and minimalism are easy when they are optional, but they are nowhere near as desirable for those who are forced to live a minimalist lifestyle without choice because of a lack of resources and/or social constraints. However, in contrast to the scientists, the technologists do not share an explicit or even unconscious belief in the importance of ethical principles. They fundamentally reject all constraints on their own work and behavior. They answer only to the consumer. If people want something enough to spend money on it they are happy to supply it. Social, ethical, environmental consequences be dammed. They are more than happy to brag about all the “good” their products have facilitated. Look at the importance of Twitter in the Arab Spring is a great example of this line of thinking.

Ultimately however the shareholders and board members of Twitter or any other tech company could give two shits about such things. They view any incidental benefit as good PR, and if it helps them sleep easier at night that is just a fortunate bonus. Scientists are far from perfect. There are evil people who also claim to be scientists. However they are in the minority. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the technologists. My biggest fear as a practicing scientist is that technologists might someday use my work for their own gain.