What has philosophy taught us in the past 100 years? Has it revealed to us the true nature of the universe? What about morality? Have we concluded with certainty anything about morality through the practice of philosophy? What about God? What has any philosophy taught us about whether or not God exists?

Now I’m not really bashing the practice of philosophy here. I firmly believe in its value. A primary benefit is philosophy’s ability to remind us how difficult some situations are. We assume we know all there is to know about some simple topic, and some field of philosophy teaches us that things aren’t as easy or clear as we like to think. Try a few variants of the famous trolley thought experiments and you’ll realize that morality is a lot more complicated than just “doing what you know instinctively is right”.

Part of what makes it difficult when discussing the relative values of philosophy and science is delineating between them. In many ways, science is supported by philosophy and even is a philosophy. Likewise philosophy is in many ways a sort of science and is supported by science. The reason I think that both are beneficial and so similar is that at their best they’re grounded in empiricism (observation of reality). Pretty much all good science is empirical, where hypotheses are based on observation and then those hypotheses are tested by further observations under controlled circumstances. Any science not based on empiricism could arguably be labeled as pseudoscience.

In my opinion, philosophy is at its best when it synchronizes with science. Certainly philosophy addresses topics beyond the scope of empiricism or naturalism, the boundaries of science. But in those broader areas that are subject solely to philosophical investigation, we don’t seem to make a whole lot of measurable progress. What do we know now about objective reality beyond our experience? No more than we ever have. Those who claim access to such things generally make unsupported theological assertions, which look more like a pseudophilosophy than a genuine avenue to knowledge. Subjects beyond empiricism are worth discussing, and it’s valuable to explore the reasons why we make so little progress beyond empiricism, but philosophy provides more value (again in my humble opinion) when it joins with science in the arena of naturalism.

Philosophy contributes to science through intellectual exploration. Some difficult moral questions are elucidated through empirical study, and joining the study of psychology in addressing the relationships between values, morals, and behaviors, philosophy can provide some clear direction and respond to empirical results.

Philosophy also contributes by supporting empiricism. I think that the philosophical exploration of epistemology (the study of knowledge) is critical to explaining why we must value empiricism. Epistemology can reveal the failings of some pseudophilosophies and articulate the value of observation and testing.

I realize that my tone, despite my best efforts, is fairly disparaging toward philosophy. That’s not what I’m going for. I consider myself an amateur philosopher and not a scientist, but perhaps it reflects a truly negative feeling that I harbor toward some areas of philosophy. Some philosophical pursuits feel futile and overblown. Perhaps this is due to the many areas of philosophy that I have not explored. But I think that philosophy’s contributions to science and empiricism can be practically limitless, however being somewhat more limited than the boundless expectations some have for the capabilities of philosophy. Maybe more about why we feel that way another time?