Using philosophy to interpret science
"In the 17th and 18th Centuries, great philosophers exchanged their original ideas with the general public. Cutting-edge research in philosophy is now so inaccessible, we write only for each other."
Tom Stoneham
Crucial scientific problems cannot always be solved by standard testing. Scientists investigating the causes of global warming, for example, do not have the luxury of conducting experiments on one hundred Earth-like planets - because there is only one Earth.
To help unravel the uncertainty of cause and effect in complex issues, such as climate change or the spread of disease, the University of York is bringing together scientists and philosophers in a series of one-day workshops.
Organiser Tom Stoneham, from the Department of Philosophy, says: "Philosophers have been studying causation for 400 years, so they are well placed to help scientists interpret information.
"But often, there's so much debate and disagreement among philosophers that we fail to offer a definitive answer. And if scientists do manage to hit on something useful from our thinking, we often say, 'That's not what I meant.'
"It's time to overcome these barriers, to transfer knowledge and provoke new insights."
Tom says: "As philosophers, we seem to have lost the ability to communicate with the wider public. Here, we're trying something experimental to show it is possible to transfer knowledge without dumbing down.
"By sharing our thinking and making our creativity of wider interest, we hope that our own discipline will also benefit – that philosophy might once again become part of general intellectual activity within the UK."
The workshops aim to offer new insight into the causes of global warming, the spread of disease and the most effective way of funding healthcare. In doing so, the aspiration is to inform policy on these issues.
The first workshop addressed the gap that often exists between available statistical evidence and the information requested by those seeking to make effective policy.
"Road pollution is not 'the cause' of global warming and scientists are not clear exactly the extent to which it contributes. Yet it is a relevant factor and also something for which we can take responsibility by not driving to work – so this might be the appropriate concept of causation for policy decisions," explains Tom.
Among those to benefit was Dr Jon Lovett, from the University of York's Environment Department. He says: "What was remarkable about the workshop was the frank admission from myself and other scientists that actually we are not as sure about causation as we would like others to believe.
"Sometimes it is just not possible to apply the full scientific method, either for practical reasons, as in the case of global warming, or ethical reasons, as in medical science. So it is quite a relief to find out that philosophers have been wrestling with this issue since the ancient Greeks.
"We have to bring science to policy, and this is where the philosophy of causation is so important – at what point can we say we are sure enough that major changes in policy should be made?"
Such has been its success, the ambition now is for the series to culminate with an international event to shed new light on ways of tackling the spread of HIV and AIDS in Africa.
Add a comment
Comments on this article