We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
from Part I - Issues in the Philosophy of Cosmology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 April 2017
Introduction
A popular account of the development of science, in particular of cosmology, and of the relation between science and philosophy goes like this: Science is inherently progressive and ever extends our knowledge. Step by step, phenomena at smaller and larger scales become known to us. Philosophy, by contrast, is concerned with those questions that we cannot (yet) answer in a scientific way due to a lack of empirical evidence. Accordingly, as science progresses, the boundary between the sciences and philosophy shifts. As a result, philosophy continuously loses ground, thus becoming more and more marginal – or so the view is. The aim of this comment is to discuss this account of science and philosophy with a special emphasis on cosmology.
A Popular Story About the Development of Science and Philosophy
Let us first unfold the popular story in more detail. There is quite a lot to support it. Early attempts to account for the natural world and to explain the observed phenomena, e.g. in ancient Greece, were fraught with speculation. There was simply no alternative, since, in modern terms, background knowledge was small and data sparse. Accordingly, to the extent that there was natural science, it was speculative and in this sense philosophical. Philosophy and the natural sciences were not, and could not be, properly distinguished, as is evident e.g. from the fact that a renowned philosopher, viz. Plato, wrote a dialogue concerned with what we now call cosmology.
Given the lack of knowledge and data, it is no surprise that there were rival views on how the world is composed and how far it extends. As to the small scales, there was controversy as to whether the natural world is built out of tiny, indivisible bodies, as the atomists claimed. There were competing views about the largest scales too: Whereas the atomists favoured an infinite world, the school that gained predominance for quite some time claimed that the Universe was finite and consisted largely of what is now considered to be the solar system (consult Kragh (2007) for a history of cosmology).
After the so-called Scientific Revolution, and particularly during the twentieth century, our knowledge of the natural world has rapidly increased.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.
