1

Is there a privileged link between materialism and natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world?

(1) Extreme supposition: is it contradictory to do natural sciences without being a materialist?

(2) Mild supposition: is there a privileged relationship, theoretically and historically, between materialism and the development of natural sciences?

By "privileged theoretically" I mean in terms of the theoretical acquaintance between materialism and natural sciences (for instance, the possible shared view that reality is made of matters independent from the human mind).

By "privileged historically" I mean (a) in terms of the proportion of materialists scientists, and the proportions of materialist philosophers who actively and purposively participated (in their work on ontology or epistemology) in the development of natural sciences; and (b) whether materialism and the natural sciences somehow developed conjointly.

Starckman
  • 1,510
  • 4
  • 14
  • 1
    (1) Obviously not. (2) You'll have to spell out what "privileged relationship" means to make this question answerable. Historically, platonists were (Eudoxus, Kepler, Newton) and continue to be (Penrose, Tegmark) pretty active in physics, as were other idealists (Born, Wigner, Heisenberg), anti-realists (Mach, Bohr, Bridgman), etc. And that not counting the vast majority of scientists who do not care to philosophize. So it can't be that "privileged". – Conifold Feb 12 '23 at 08:47
  • @Conifold I corrected my post – Starckman Feb 12 '23 at 09:00
  • 3
    @Starckman Maybe it is not so important, in the sense that being a "platonist" or "materialist" may be that you make claims that cannot be verified (because they are metaphysical?) - so whatever your metaphysical "orientation" you can still participate in science. – Frank Feb 12 '23 at 15:34
  • @Frank Yes you can participate in science. This is why I chose the term "privileged relationship" – Starckman Feb 13 '23 at 03:18

0 Answers0