Science and Philosophy: The Passionate and Harmonious Dance

The projected beam of light hits the center of the dimly lit stage. The couple stand on each side, their eyes locked on each other’s. They seem so different, so apart, so 'from-different-worlds'…Just until the magical melody starts, with which the bodies get closer, the eyes are more telling.

As the music fills the air, their electrified energy pulls them closer, inch by inch, leading to a passionate embrace. They start swaying and swirling together, as if they are one. They are in perfect harmony, where one reaches the climax while the other retreats, in turn, just like the Yin and Yang.

Intertwined bodies, embracing arms, locked eyes in a wordless conversation, they are still so different, yet so complementing, so one…

This is how, in my mind, science and philosophy dance together passionately and harmoniously, complement each other, and form a unison. Too romantic, too abstract? I don’t think so. Let me try to convince you.

Two Paths of Inquiry

We, as humans, have an unquenchable desire to make sense of ourselves and the universe (and our place in it). Driven by this desire, in our relentless pursuit of understanding the universe and our place within it, two of the disciplines that we turn to are science and philosophy. I will explore, in this article how these seemingly disparate fields are not only interconnected but also complementary.

I will present how each discipline enriches the other in a way that offers a more holistic, more complete, and more meaningful understanding of ourselves, our universe, and our existence in it.

Science: What Is

Science aims to understand the natural world. It was called “natural philosophy” during the ancient, medieval, and early modern periods prior to being called “science.” Science’s roots are deeply embedded in empirical evidence because science is after explaining what is, how things work, and make sense. Its approach is more ‘a posteriori’ as called in the philosophical lexicon. It starts with “ignoramus – we do not know” and aims to know.

You start with a question on an unknown. You bring a hypothesis to your question. Then, you test your hypothesis, observe, record, and analyze the results. If your results are non-repeatable, you revisit your hypothesis and bring an updated or a new one. If your results are repeatable, then you have the answer to your question. It is your “truth”, only until another scientist comes along and brings a better hypothesis that produces better results.

This is why science is self-correcting. It is a journey of progression, a collaborative effort where no discovery is an absolute “truth”. As highlighted in my book, "Science advances in collaboration. No scientist discovers anything from scratch in isolation." This essence of progression and building upon previous knowledge is what makes science an indispensable tool in our desire to know ‘what is’. What it is that in the intimidating-to-visualize vastness of the universe and what it is in the infinitesimally small universe of the quantum realm.

Philosophy: Why and What Ought to Be

While science curiously seeks the tangible and measurable aspects of reality, philosophy courageously ventures into the abstract realms of reality. (‘Metaphysics’[1]is the philosophy’s branch that does this) Compared to the scientist, here, the philosopher leverages more (not always) reason and rational thinking rather than seeking empirical evidence. It is called ‘a priori’ in the philosophy lexicon.

Even more courageously and boldly, philosophy continues its venture to explore the treacherous waters of ethics, values, knowledge, and the meanings of existence through ethics, epistemology, and teleology. Echoing the words of David Hume, who has had a substantial influence on my complementary view of science and philosophy, philosophy delves into “what ought to be”, offering a contrast to the empirical focus of science, which is more after “what is”[2].

This distinction, as also emphasized in my earlier writings, is crucial in understanding the complementary nature of philosophy to science. I cannot overstate philosophy's role in interpreting, contextualizing, and providing meaning to scientific discoveries. It challenges us to think beyond the limits of empirical data and to contemplate the broader implications of scientific findings on our societies, morality, and our understanding of life itself.

Seemingly Disparate Worlds Form a Unison

Science is more about answers, while philosophy is more about questions. Science seeks causal (cause-effect) relationships and employs linear thinking, while philosophy employs more expansive, lateral, multi-dimensional thinking. It explores non-causal, relational connections for broader implications. (The Great David Hume is the epitome of this with his unwavering skepticism on causation)

Science is factual and seeks quantifiable data through experimentation, while philosophy goes beyond empirical facts and ventures into the world of abstract concepts. Science zeroes in, and philosophy expands the depth and the breadth. Science dissects, and philosophy synthesizes. Science deconstructs, and philosophy constructs. Science analyzes, and philosophy interprets. Science is literal, and philosophy is conceptual.

Did we not say they seem so different, so apart, so from-different-worlds? Here we saw them standing on the opposite side of the stage. Their eyes locked on each other’s…Now..Let’s give them the magical music!

All these seemingly contradicting aspects of philosophy and science are different levels of the same continua. When you dissect something, you need to synthesize it back. When you deconstruct, then you reconstruct. When you look for relational connections, you also look for causal relationships. After you go linear, then you go lateral, expansive, along with multiple lines in a network, sometimes from one node of a network to the other node of another interconnected network.

Facts make more sense within an encompassing abstract concept and context. Pure reason need not be critiqued when accompanied by quantifiable data. (Hello, the great man of Königsberg!) Zeroed-in details are parts of a complete big picture. The analysis is richer with interpretation. You solve today with answers and then transcend to tomorrow with questions. ‘what is’ does not explain ‘what ought to be’ but ‘what is’ is meaningful together with ‘what ought to be’.

The magical music is how we look at it. With dull music, they might seem like binary opposites; with magical music, they are passionate dancers, embracing each other to move as one. They are the same dancers, but the music (our way of viewing them) does the magic.

How Science Meets Philosophy Today

In contemporary times, it seems to me that, science and philosophy are getting even closer in their journey to form a unison.[3] Let’s take “interconnectedness of life” as an example, a concept once relegated to only metaphysical, spiritual discussions. Every time I read about the theory of evolution or biodiversity (which is a very important phenomenon in the field I have my background), I cannot help but think of these scientific discourses along with philosophical terms like pantheism, panpsychism, oneness, and so on.

This synthesis, as I observe, in my mind, brings a totally different level of appreciation and understanding of philosophical underpinnings in scientific inquiry. It offers a more unified approach to our efforts to understand ourselves and the universe. The advancements in quantum physics, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology are prime examples of how scientific discoveries have been increasingly informing philosophical discussions. I expect that as this continues, they will lead to a more integrated approach to understanding the nature of reality.

Another benefit, or a ‘necessity’ I should say, is the ethical and moral perspective philosophy brings as we continue to make accelerated strides in our scientific discoveries. Philosophy, in this context, plays a vital role in guiding the implementation of scientific knowledge. It helps us ask the right questions about the impact of technological advancements (enabled by scientific discoveries) on how we treat ourselves, other species, and our planet; the interconnected web life. Science can help us advance in fields like artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and other areas, but it cannot help resolve the ethical dilemmas brought along. Philosophy, the other passionate dancer, Science’s dance partner, provides the framework for addressing, approaching, and resolving these dilemmas.

Philosophy brings sophia (wisdom) to scientia (science/knowledge)...

The Interconnected Web of Life: Complementarity of Everything  

The concept of the interconnected web of life, deeply rooted in philosophical thought for ages, has recently started finding resonance in modern scientific exploration and understanding. This realization, as I have pondered, is not just something that scientists are catching up with philosophers to acknowledge, but it is also a philosophical re-awakening. It urges us to reconsider ourselves and our place in the universe, not as the reigning species to establish dominance over the nature of everything else but as integral parts of a vast, beautifully interconnected single heartbeat.

My deep-seated feeling of the notion of an interconnected web of life started its roots with the Anatolian mystic Yunus Emre’s spiritual marvel and his universal love, beyond nature. Then, it gained further meaning with Spinoza’s philosophical discourses and articulation of Deus sive Natura. And finally, it has been galvanized by Alexander von Humboldt’s scientific explorations of nature, which deciphered a profound unity there.

I want to present this notion of the interconnected web of life to appreciate the passionate and harmonious dancers in their complementing harmony, not in their solo exhibitions. I dared to convince you to bring the ‘magical music’ to their dance, not a dull one, to help them form a unison. Because I firmly believe that by helping them embrace each other and by, us, embracing them both, we will open ourselves to a better understanding of ourselves and our universe.

I would like to see more scientists whose one foot is anchored in the realm of philosophy. I aspire to hear from more astronomers like the one who was able to see the ruby lips and tulip cheeks on his wine jug. I want to see more scientists like the one in turtleneck who called it ‘a pale blue dot’ but saw all the humanity’s history, hopes, and dreams in that infinitesimal, lonely speck. I aspire to see more scientists like the one who explored a mind-blowing concept, hidden in the brief history of time, while invoking insights from the one from Hippo with an unswerving faith.

This is the prerequisite in our approach to solving all our environmental, humanitarian, and planetary issues and to enable and elevate our inner peace.

Give those passionate dancers their magical music, let them lose and the find themselves in the dark and enlightened depths of the other. Let them complete themselves in the other. Let them passionately and harmoniously dance on that dimly lit stage. And, you, the-reader-who-I-hope-I-have-convinced-by-now, live and breathe their unison.

Kaan Demiryurek

20 January 2024

[1] More specifically, ‘Ontology’, a sub-beach of metaphysics

[2] Here, on ’what is’, it is important to note that there is a significant overlap between philosophy and science. Philosophy also explores ‘what is’ through the branch of ontology, but it is much more than that. And its method is different than science. On the other hand, science does not go much beyond what is. Science does not aim to find answers to 'what ought to be'.

[3] I use the phrase “form a unison” deliberately because they cannot (and should not) ‘become one’. They are better and beautiful as they are, but even better when they complement each other. It might sound subtle, yet a profound distinction)