Science is the art of finding the answers for the questions that are asked by philosophy.

Why question, why philosophize?

It rarely results in anything practical, but it often confuses the sprouts out of everyone involved in the debate. I’ve covered it before, and can yet again, as reasons are plentiful. I’ve covered the aspect of understanding others and simply asking ‘Why?’ about everything that one does not understand, it is an instrument of learning. But it is also an instrument of doubt, and doubt is good.

Probably all of you remember the KONY 2012 campaign that looked like either a sloppy rendition of pre-Afghanistan events^[1] or a well executed diversion^[2]. For a moment shortly after the video became a hit, a lot of people were sure that Kony would soon meet his premature demise due to an unexpected bullet originating from a rifle being actively used by American troops. Then came the people who doubted the positive result of such an invasion, who doubted what the campaign was telling them, doubted so much that they dug further and spoke up. Not in defence of Kony, but against the amorality of an invasion. Some were idealists (killing is bad by default), some were utilitarians (a war would cause more harm than the absence of it), some were just plain odd (killing him would make us no better than he is). But they all doubted what was said to them, what a huge number of people took as solid information, when it was, in fact, mere rumour. And that is what philosophy tries to teach, nothing can be known before it is pondered about. With simple things, such as knowing what a lamina arcus vertebrae is, pondering is rather useless because there aren’t that many alternative options. But when morality, principles or emerging sciences are involved, thinking through every new bit of information helps understand it a lot better.

Secondly, modern philosophers have an important role very similar to science fiction authors – inspiration. Asking ‘what if this were possible?’ aids scientists foresee possible implications of emerging technologies, thus helping put these new technologies into practise faster and safer, and it is a source of inspiration for researchers. If it wasn’t for Star Trek, maybe NASA would not be trying to build a warp drive^[3]. You might argue that this is the work of science fiction authors, but there isn’t much of a difference between such authors and philosophers. Both theorize about possibilities, judge their viability, take into account human nature, people’s hopes and dreams, both wonder ‘What if…?’. Let’s not forget, there are no career philosophers anymore who would simply lie down at a nice tree and think for hours, that is left for literature majors. But there are active writers that dream big and try to inspire people to do better. Just think about Neal Stephenson and his space elevator or CLANG.

Philosophers used to be the most respected educated professionals that led local life and educated others that followed centuries after they had already passed away. They turned into natural philosophers, they created the concepts of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. Then each small area of science started spawning their own specialists, general philosophers lost their significance. They changed, from simple dreamers who taught people to think to thinkers who teach people to dream. They have always had sidegigs, they always will. Nowadays we hardly notice them because they do not fit the traditional idea of a philosopher, but they are there, silently progressing the way we think. In a way we need them to keep moving forwards.