Philosophical and Historical Development of Modern Science

Question: Discuss about thePhilosophical and Historical Development of Modern Science. Answer: Introduction Philosophy and science is related to each other very closely. Philosophy forms the basis on which ideas are formulated whereas science helps us in establishing those ideas and formulating them into reality. Philosophy and science are interdisciplinary in nature and their evolution has been inter-dependent on each other (Barker Kitcher, 2013). Science flourished only due to the emergence of free thinkers. Somebody had to come up with the thoughts to build a reality. Modern science was built on the foundation of philosophy. Philosophy sets the limits for the concept of science. It decides what can be and cannot be accomplished by science (Salazar, DiClemente Crosby, 2015). The philosophers of the enlightenment era led to the development of modern science and establishing the concept that man can master the mysteries of nature and fulfill their own purpose. The late 17th and 18th century is identified as the period of Enlightenment (Martin, 2014). Age of reason was marked by the presence of scientists and philosophers who based their ideas on the backbone of reasoning. This period saw the rise of the freedom of thought and the free thinkers. These people existed in the late 17th and 18th century, however, their thoughts still echoes and has filtered through the 21st century, in the period of advanced science and technology. This period significantly marks the emergence of modern philosophy as well as science that led to the creation of the modern world. Enlightenment philosophers defended the Age of Reason by laying stress on the thoughts that the knowledge of the human receives the top priority and the knowledge was no longer tamed by the shackles of t he thoughts that were established in the past (Bod, 2014). The origin and limits of human knowledge had an altered face. Newer limits were being defined at the wake of science. Hence, this progressive displacement of claim to human superiority has led us to lead us into trying harder to unravel the mysteries of the universe. Thorough research has established the idea firmly that Earth and human beings are a very small part of the magnanimous Universe. Rise of anthropocentrism was a huge blow to the concept of humans that they had some sort of superiority over nature as being the centre of the universe. Lack of distinction between the idea of art and science paved the way for the people to harbor superstitions (Fiero, 2012). However, faces like Leonardo Da Vinci stood for the idea of art as well as science. His creations are still marveled at in the field of modern science. Astronomy was a field of science that was established only after people like Copernicus and Kepler had establis hed that the Earth revolved around the sun and it is not the centre of the universe (Braidotti, 2013). Plato and Aristotle perceived the empirical theory differently. Plato considered that pure knowledge can only be gained through self deduction. However, Aristotle considered that knowledge is gained by evaluating what exists and what had existed. With time it has been observed that it is easier to relate to the Aristotelian principle of the existing similarity among objects (Cunningham, Reich Fichner-Rathus, 2014). The Newtonian laws of gravity are still studied in details today and every biologist refers to the Darwinian principle of natural selection. Today, man is breeding anthropocentrism where they are becoming more self-centric without delving on the consequences their actions have on nature (Burtt, 2012). Even in the face of the facts that human is not the centre of the universe, the enthusiasm did not receive a dent and from the perspective of humanities, art has flourishe d however, it had a scientific approach to it. Intrinsic goods and instrumental goods have a thin line of difference between them and there are times when examples of situations based on these two schools of ideas overlap. Intrinsic good refers to the inherent goodness of a certain thing (Musson, 2014). Ideas like happiness, peace, love, truth, friendship are categorized as ideas that possess intrinsic value as they are trailed for their own sake and not to achieve something else through them. However, instrumental good appears to be good as we attach the idea of goodness to them externally. It means that an idea reflected as instrumentally good only when it helps us in achieving something (Davison, 2012). For example, money is an instrumentally valuable object as it helps us in buying things. Modern science is believed to have an instrumental approach towards relationship between man and natural world. This idea can be discussed as; man utilizes science to understand how nature functions (Kroes Verbeek, 2014). In this way, mode rn science can be considered as an instrumental good because it helps us gain/ pursue something else, nature in this respect. The recognition of our proper place in the context of a vast and ancient universe is an essential insight for humans as it helps in determining our existence in the face of infinity (Anstey, 2013). It does affect our understanding of ourselves. It helps us in realizing the fact that we are nothing, and like everything else, we are bound to perish. In ordinary life, philosophical reasoning is necessary in carrying out even day-to-day activities. Newtonian laws has gave us the insight into the idea that every action has an equal and opposite reaction (Schofield, 2015). Hence, every action of ours, which is part of our contemporary life, has an effect on the environment. The idea of everything having a price and dignity as stated by Kant can be applied to relate with the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental value. The ethical aspect to each of our actions needs to be considered. As per Kants belief, we should not treat a fellow human as a means to fulfill our purpose, an idea related to instrumental aspect of a thing (ONeill, 2013). Humanity should work towards establishing mutual respect and attaching intrinsic values to each other. `It is fairly believed that the secularization of the modern world owes it to the scientific revolution that had taken place in the 16th and 17th century. However, science alone cannot explain the way the world functions. Philosophy allows humanity to get a foothold on the idea of conscience, which goes into hiding once science comes into play. Modern science gives the perception at times that man can play God, however, the existence of philosophy, helps in striking a balance. Rationality has subjugated philosophy at the wake of science. That is why we need philosophy to avoid humanity from committing actions having dire consequences for the earth. References: Anstey, P. R. (2013).The Oxford handbook of British philosophy in the seventeenth century. Oxford University Press. Barker, G., Kitcher, P. (2013). Philosophy of science: A new introduction. Bod, R. (2014).A new history of the humanities: The search for principles and patterns from antiquity to the present. Oxford University Press. Braidotti, R. (2013). Posthuman humanities.European Educational Research Journal,12(1), 1-19. Burtt, E. A. (2012).The metaphysical foundations of modern science. Courier Corporation. Cunningham, L. S., Reich, J. J., Fichner-Rathus, L. (2014).Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities. Cengage Learning. Davison, S. A. (2012).On the Intrinsic Value of Everything. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Fiero, G. K. (2012).Landmarks in humanities. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Kroes, P., Verbeek, P. P. (Eds.). (2014).The moral status of technical artefacts. Springer. Martin, C. (2014).Subverting Aristotle: Religion, history, and philosophy in early modern science. JHU Press. Musson, A. E. (2014).Science, technology and economic growth in the eighteenth century. Routledge. O'Neill, O. (2013).Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics. Cambridge University Press. Salazar, L. F., DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A. (2015). Philosophy of science and theory construction.Research Methods in Health Promotion, 23. Schofield, R. E. (2015).Mechanism and materialism: British natural philosophy in an age of reason. Princeton University Press.