THE PHILOSOPHICAL LIMITS OF SCIENCIi 



By Rev. Sidm-v Read Welcei, B.A.. D.D., Ph.D. 



The word " science " is used here in the jx^pular sense of 

 knowledge that can l)e verified by tangible proof. 



In a wider sense ])hik)Sophy is also science; and this is ad- 

 mitted by the usage oi some scientific societies and jjeriodicals. 

 Without debating about names we may say, that both science 

 and philosophy are knowledge : and by knowledge I mean a 

 psychical state in whicii somehow the nature of objective reality 

 is conveyed to our minds. 



Some scientists deny that philosophy can really solve any 

 problem; and that its ettorts to deal witn ultimate causes ha\ e 

 been a vain and unprofitable undertaking. These ma}^ be c*)unter- 

 balanced, and to use a jjarliamentary phrase " paired " by the 

 extreme left wing of ])hdosophers, who hold that all scientific 

 knowledge is tentative and uncertain ; that even mathematics i^ 

 based on a few shaky conventions ; and that no amount of present 

 consensus, on the part of scientists, can go bail for the future 

 teaching of science. 



But to-day the large body of both scientists and philosoi)lun> 

 agree in thinking that both science and ])hilosophy have con- 

 tributed in various ways to the sum of human knowledge. 



Philosophy may roughly 'be taken to include the conclu- 

 sions that deal with the principles and processes common to all 

 sound knowledge. Aristotle believed that in his day the level 

 of pure thought had reached its high-water mark in Socrate^, 

 who accustomed men to express general conceptions in defini- 

 tions arrived at partly by analogy and partly by induction. 



To-day, after many changes of fashion, logic, metaphysic> 

 and portions of modern psychology may be said, together, to 

 constitute the realm of ]>hilosophy. They provide the body of 

 general principles that act as a useful corrective and restraint 

 on the particular work of all the sciences. 



It is in this sense that I projxjse to speak of the philosophical 

 limits of science. For the whole of purely human knowledge 

 is not so much the sum of philosophy and science, as their pro- 

 duct. They interpenetrate one another completely, and are not 

 mere results that exist side by side. 



Hence if we choose to represent the restilts of science up to 

 date, as a complex quantity within brackets, we may represent 

 philosophy as an x otitside the bracket. Upon the value of .r 

 will depend the value of the whole, and thus the value of .r 

 limits the total. Thus philosophical speculation on the assum]>- 

 tians of science may be said to limit and qualify the human 

 value of the whole wealth of scientific attainment. 



I do not lose sight of the fact that the action of philosophy 

 and science is mutual. Science, by its assured results, has re- 

 strained many of the vagaries of philosophy. But that is not 

 my theme at present. I am looking at the boundaries "between 

 philosophy and science from the other side of the fence. 



