Page |1

Joone Xyron Creencia Mr. Vito Hernandez

2015-03303 STS-1

Science: At Its Roots

What is science? That is a question that is asked probably all through-out the days that we
study it. From primary through secondary school, it would be defined as “the study of
knowledge” or the “systematic study of nature through observation, etc.” and while that is not
wrong, it is incomplete. Science is not only a field of study, rather more than that, it is a way
of thinking, just like what Sagan said in his article. Science seeks for a way understand
physical phenomena, the reasons behind them, the factors leading to a particular event, and
the connections of each phenomenon from another. Bluntly put, the ultimate goal of science
can be summarized in one short phrase, and that is “to understand”. But why is it like so?
Since ancient times people have been striving to understand the world through logic and
reasoning, which could be said to be the very root of science. To delve deep into the heart of
something, anything in fact, is said to be an exciting experience that could only be understood
by humans[1]. But understanding has its own constraints, and these constraints are imposed
upon us by nature itself. In our quest for understanding nature, we discover and learn that the
driving forces behind certain phenomena cannot be violated in any way and are thus called
‘laws’. These ‘laws’ provide us with a certain level of understanding about the things that
happen around us but at the same time constrain us within their limits since things that cannot
be explained are deemed to be ‘forbidden by the laws of nature’[1]. Also, understanding is
influenced by many different kinds of bias and limitations, since even something as simple as
a leaf or a flower has many complex concepts that would not be easily comprehended. To
remove bias, it is necessary to delve into history to be able to see things from a more
objective point of view. And if we go into the history of science, what we find there is
philosophy. While contemporary science can be said to be not as close to philosophy as its
predecessor, it does not mean that they are not related to each other, since the core of science
is logic and reasoning which is in fact very similar to philosophy. In the article “Why Science
Needs Philosophy” by Laplane, et. al, they stated that philosophy manifests in science in at
least four forms, and these are: the clarification of scientific concepts, the critical assessment
of scientific assumptions or methods, the formulation of new concepts and theories, and the
fostering of dialogue between different sciences. Clarification of scientific concepts can be
 Page |2

seen as an influence of philosophy because it uses the tools of philosophy in investigating

properties. According to the article, these tools have been recently used to describe the
property of stem cells referred to as “stemness”. Conceptual clarification is very helpful in
science because it can improve the precision and the usage of certain scientific terms while
also carrying the possibility of creating new and different ways of conducting experimental
observations which could consequently lead to discoveries that have not yet been observed
due to the rigidity of older conceptual frameworks[2]. At the same time, the second
manifestation of philosophy in science is something that complements with conceptual
clarification and that is criticality. As a university that prides itself in scientific study, UP has
always advocated ‘critical thinking’ and that is exactly what the second influence of
philosophy is on science. The critical assessment of scientific assumptions is of very great
importance because it ensures the accuracy, precision, as well as the possibility of
reproducing the same result in the same conditions are. It can also aid in formulating new,
testable and predictive theories that will help create new paths for scientific research[2]. In
philosophy, everything is run by rules set by the theories that they have, much like in science.
Scientific theories and concepts are formulated to explain the phenomena that came about the
‘laws of nature’. The last influence of philosophy according to the article is the fostering of
dialogue between different sciences and this is very apparent in the field of science. This can
be seen in how phenomena in different fields of science affect one another. Each branch of
science is deeply connected with each other in such a way that one phenomena in a certain
branch of science, say geology, ultimately has an effect in a certain phenomena in a different
branch of science, like biology. Science, as previously mentioned, is the systematic study of
nature. It is called systematic because it follows certain rules and these rules are governed by
logic and there are two types of logic, inductive and deductive. When studying concepts
using the scientific method, both of these types of logic are used. Deductive logic is the type
of logic that makes a prediction based on the knowledge currently at hand[3]. This is the type
of logic that is used when formulating hypotheses during a scientific experiment. The second
type of logic is called inductive logic. Contrary to deductive logic, which creates inferences
from currently known information, inductive logic does the exact opposite–it creates
conclusions after making observations. This is the type of logic that is used during
experimentation and conclusion of an experiment. But why would we need to be systematic?
Why follow set rules? According to Pirsig, it is important to be systematic in the study of
nature to so that we will always know where we currently are, where we have been, and
where we may or will end up in so that we would not be misled by nature into thinking that
 Page |3

we already know something that we actually don’t. The critical assessment of the
assumptions and results of a study would then play a very important role as well, as it can
help in confirming the accuracy and precision of the results obtained based on previous
experiments or, in the case of first time experiments, it would ensure that the results obtained
are accurate and precise based on theoretical knowledge, as well as ensure that the same
results can be reproduced again. But before all of this, it is important to at least have
knowledge about the study you are about to conduct an experiment on. As Fleck said in his
“To Look, To See, To Know”, in order to see, one has first to know. In the first part of his
article, he showed a grayscale picture featuring a cloud, but if you do not know beforehand
that it is a cloud, it would be possible to see it as other things, like a rippling surface of water
or even a close-up photo of the neck of an old mountaineer. This only means that In the same
way, to be able to properly conduct experiments, one first must know what ‘should be’ so that
one will be able to tell what the problem is. Fleck said that to be able to see, a person must
first know what is essential and what is not, otherwise it would be impossible to discern
problems which could normally easily be seen had you the knowledge of what needs to be
seen[4]. At the same time, even if we do know and see things as they are, there are still
elements that remain unknown, and it is these elements that which we strive to understand
through study using the scientific method. In conclusion, it can be said that science is the
study of nature that is driven by humanity’s curiosity as a race, is spurred by their thirst for
knowledge and desire for understanding, derived from the systematic nature of philosophy
and logic and is constraint by the limitations set by the laws of nature.

References:

[1] Sagan, C. Can We Know the Universe?

[2]Laplane L., et. al. Why Science Needs Philosophy.

https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1900357116 (Retrieved April 1, 2019)

[3]Pirsig, R. On Scientific Method

[4]Fleck, L. To Look, To See, To Know. 1947.