NO.

for knowledge and the long experience of the human race throughout the centuries
have given us an accumulation of facts and beliefs which we take largely for
granted. Furthermore, out of the experience and thinking of the past has come the
discarding of various possible tests of truth as inadequate. Few informed persons
would base truth on custom or tradition alone. While customs and traditions are
often valuable, they may also lead one astray. They sometimes conflict, and they
do not provide for change and progress. The appeal to “universal agreement” is
equally insecure, since some beliefs that have been widespread and firmly belived
over long periods (e.g.,that the earth is flat) have later been found to be false.
Others, in the past, have appealed to instinct. The instinct theory, however, has
been under criticism, and many things formerly explained on the basis of instincts
are now explained more adequately by “conditioning”. Still others have appealed
to the strong feeling that a thing is true yet feelings may be determined by our
moods, our health, or our training.

We shall find that there is no complete agreement regarding the test of truth. Each
answer will call forth some severe criticisms from opposing points of view. The
reader will do well to ask : Is one of thes tests the true and only one or does each
one contain some angle or vision of the truth? Do they need to be combined in
some way ? The three theories of the test of truth which we shall consider are : the
correspondence theory, the coherence or consistency theory, and the pragmatic
theory.
NO. 6

The very fack that scientific method is so valuable and has so much prestige is likely to blind us to certain
possible errors into which both the scientist and the general public are inclined to fall. Men in all walks
of life easily develop “blind spots”. This is particularly true of the specialist in any field. Even an
exceptionally careful investigator, after completing his research, will sometimes make claims which are
unwarranted by the fackt discovered.

In our discussion in this section we are thinking of science and scientific method in the more restricted
sense, as the terms are used by most scientists in the natural sciences, where the methods are strictly
empirical and objective and the puspose is to interpret the world in quantitative or mathematical terms.
We are assuming that scientists may investigate anything with which their methods are capable of
dealing. There is no attempt to keep the sciences out of any particular areas of human experience. If
there are any limitations, they exist in the nature of the methods and techniques which are used.

If one reads widely in the literature of many of the special sciences, many questions will arise in ghis
mind. For example, why are there “the seven psychologies”, each claiming to be the valid approach and
to represent the truth ? What are the dominant factors in human behavior and in social progress ? Are
they the geographical factors, or the blood and heredity, or one of various psychological drives, or
cultural diffusion, or the economic factors, to mention just a few of the answers ? The conflicting
evidence and claims are very bewildering.

Are there any principles which, if generally recognized by in vestigators and by the general public, will
help to eliminate some of the “blind spots” and the extreme claims which are often made ? The
following simple suggestions are presented, in the belief that they will help. Think of them as things to
keep in mind when considering science and scientific method.
No. 7
WHEREIN DO PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE AGREE ?
There are various points of agreement between philosophy and
science. During the last few centuries philosophy has developed in
close association with the special sciences. Many of the out standing
philosophers have made important contributions in the sciences. For
example, Leibnitz shared in the discovery of differential calculus. The
contributions of A.N. Whitehead and Bertrand Russell to mathematical
theory are well known. Both philosophy and science use the methods
of reflective thinking in their attempt to face the facts of the world and
of life. Both exhibit a critical, open minded attitude and an impartial
concern for the truth. They are interested in organized and
systematized knowledge.
WHEREIN DO PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE DIFFER ?
The contrasts between philosophy and science represent tendencies or
points of emphasis, not absolute distinctions. Whereas the sciences
deal with restricted or limited fields, philosophy at tempts to deal with
the whole of experience. Philosophy is thus inclusive rather than
exclusive, and it attempts to include what is common to all fields and to
human experience in general. Philosophy thus attempts to gain a more
comprehensive view of things. Whereas science is more analytic and
descriptive in its approach, philosophy is more synthetic or synoptic,
dealing with the properties and qualities of nature and life as a whole. If
it can be said that science attempts to analyze the whole into its
constituent elements or the organism into organs, philosophy can be
said to combine things in interpretative synthesis and to seek the total
significance of things. Whereas science tends to eliminate the personal
factor and to ignore values in its drive for objectivity, philosophy is
interested in personality, in values, and in all realms of experience. If
we say that science is interested in the nature of things as they are,
philosophy may be said to be interested also in the ideal possibilities of
things and in their worth and meaning. To observe nature, to construct
means, and to control processes is the aim of science, to criticize,
evaluate, and co-ordinate ends is part of the task of philosophy.
Both science and philosophy are interested in the explanation and
meaning of things. In science, however, the emphasis is more upon a
description of the laws of phenomena and upon causal
NO. 8