Abstract
IN his recent presidential address to the British Institute of Philosophy, under the title “Philosophy and the Ordinary Man”, Sir Herbert Samuel pointed out that although all action and thought is the conscious or unconscious product of a philosophical attitude, the ordinary man takes little interest in philosophy, with which he thinks he has no concern. In this respect philosophy contrasts strikingly with science, which arouses widespread interest. The reason is partly that expositors of science do not disdain to write in the vernacular, whereas many philosophers find it necessary to use a special terminology. It is chiefly, however, that science consists predominantly of a body of knowledge which commands common assent, whereas philosophy is largely an aggregate of individual systems of thought. Nevertheless, it has an important function to perform in constructing an authoritative code of morals for the guidance of those bewildered by the progress of science. It could best do this, said Sir Herbert, and at the same time command greater public interest, if it could be induced “to turn aside from a priori methods, to put no great faith in Logic as a guide, … and to press forward into the realms of metaphysics and ethics along the roads opened up by mathematics, physics, biology in general and psychology in particular, and by the social sciences”.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Science and Philosophy. Nature 129, 897 (1932). https://doi.org/10.1038/129897a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/129897a0