Wolf and Dog
We always ponder the question, “Science or philosophy?” Yet, can we really compare two different ways of pursuing knowledge. Is it right to justify which way is the right way? I am a believer of both philosophy and science, and it’s hard to see each community bash each other for thinking differently. If you compare a wolf and a dog you’ve got two animals that come from the same branch in the tree of life. Both of these animals share the purpose to survive, however the behaviors they show in the quest to survive and thrive couldn’t be any more different. Dogs used to be creatures that could provide for themselves in ways that wolves do now. Although this is true, the dog has become a domestic creature that no longer has the need to take care of itself. As a result, its purpose has shifted towards being a loving companion and filling a role in our modern lifestyles. You could argue that science and philosophy share the same relationship: Both have evolved from the same branch in the effort to answer the questions of “why is”, but the process they use is not shared. For hundreds of years, philosophy and science were apples from the same tree, but as science has progressed into what it is now, the need for philosophy has shifted. Instead of helping us understand things that have already been answered, I think philosophy deals with the things science wishes it could answer; things numbers and equations can’t seem to crack. I simply don’t believe these fields should be compared and analyzed in a competitive manner. Neither field is better than the other because they help us understand different things in different ways.