How Philosophy and Science Relate to Knowledge

The disciplines of philosophy and science are both rational pursuits. Each, however, goes about pursuing knowledge in totally different ways. Philosophy relies primarily on strict logic and analytical thinking. It is somewhat like mathematics, except that it uses words. Science uses experimentation and inference to arrive at conclusions and then test them. Each approach has particular strengths and particular weaknesses.

I believe philosophy has a clearer understanding of knowledge than science does. In my opinion, science has a tendency to abuse the word "know" where philosophy does not. There is an entire discipline in philosophy called epistemology which studies the nature of knowledge and tries to understand how we know what we know. The best definition of knowledge I ever came across in philosophy was "the unthinkability of mistake." Basically, one is in a state of knowing, when one finds error to be unthinkable. Statements such as "I am in pain" would qualify as knowledge, as would many mathematical statements. As a general rule, the sciences, such as physics, do not provide us with such strong knowledge. For example, the law of energy conservation which states that energy is neither created nor destroyed does not constitute knowledge. Why? There are a number of reasons. First, it is conceivable that we may eventually discover that it simply does not hold. Perhaps, energy is created or destroyed in amounts that are undetectable to our instruments. Could we really detect something like 10^-100 joule? Currently, I don't think we can. Additionally, the law of energy conservation (as well as the rest of science) rests on the assumption that the future will resemble the past. It is conceivable that in the future the laws of science will change.

Science, however, should not simply be dismissed because of this. Our technology, for example, is only possible because of our science and that makes the statement "science does not produce knowledge" a rather odd statement to make. As a rule, science has been quite successful in allowing us to manipulate our environment and enhance our quality of life. It does this because it operates empirically. It makes a few basic assumptions (the external world is real, the future will resemble the past, etc...) and proceeds from there. Results are verified by repeated tests. The resulting "knowledge" gained is then used to advance our technology.

This points to the fact that there is a difference between theoretical knowledge and technological know-how. As science has a history of constantly proving its theoretical views wrong as it advances through time, I feel comfortable saying that science does not produce theoretical knowledge. However, I would not say that it produces mere opinion either. Rather, I would argue that it produces something called "rational belief." This rational belief is strong enough that it allows us to produce know-how. And it is this know-how that helps us manipulate our environment. Philosophy, on the other hand, does produce knowledge. This knowledge, though, is so limited that it is all but useless for everyday purposes.