The Key Philosophical Sciences

The scientific method addresses, by its very nature, only a fixed portion of reality, pertaining exclusively to the material cosmos, and not, in itself, to things such as the laws of logic themselves, abstract concepts, and introspection.  Still, the inherently limited scope of science does not mean that science is somehow outside of philosophy--an impossible thing, for philosophy encompasses every aspect of reality, regardless of how remote or trivial.  I want to draw attention to three particular subcategories of science ripe for philosophical analysis, with each of the three areas allowing for easy connection with major issues of metaphysics.


Neuroscience

Neuroscience pertains to the study of the anatomy and physiology of the nervous system--the brain, the spinal cord, and the billions of neurons responsible for conveying nerve impulses.  The distinction between neuron activities and qualia (conscious experiences), the correlation between certain brain functions and certain aspects of consciousness, and the existence of free will are some of the most prominent topics of philosophical importance assessed by neuroscientists.  This means that neuroscience might come up when conversing about substance dualism or affiliated topics.

Of course, science cannot prove anything except that in the present moment matter is behaving a certain way in a particular place in the cosmos, and logic proves to me on its own both that consciousness is metaphysically distinct from my body and that I have free will [1].  The person who looks to neuroscience can at most discover information about how the nervous system operates behind our experiences of consciousness, but logic and introspection are epistemologically superior to science, and inherently so.


Cosmology

Cosmology, the study of the universe (the arrangement and behavior of celestial bodies, the beginning of the cosmos), remains popular in dialogues about theism, particularly because scientific data suggesting the universe had a beginning by extension suggests that something that can cause material things to exist resides outside of the cosmos.  From 1929 onward, the data in favor of the Big Bang has steadily increased, with no evidence having been discovered that favors Steady State theory (the idea that the universe has always existed in an infinite past).  The scientific evidence for the Big Bang, as with all scientific evidence, is limited and subject to newer evidence superceding it, so if one wants absolute certainty that the universe had a beginning one must wield logic.

Just as I can prove to myself using logic alone that consciousness is immaterial and that I have free will, I can also prove that any possible cosmos must have a finite beginning by simply demonstrating the logical impossibility of an infinite past, self-creation, and something coming into existence without a cause [2].  Science is entirely irrelevant to what logic illuminates about these matters--but it is still important to note that scientific discoveries do not contradict these conclusions.  These facts in no way establishes that the Christian deity exists, but the impossibility of infinite regression both proves that any material world cannot be past-eternal and that a cause has always existed (alongside other things that have always existed, like logic and space [3].  Science is not needed, but it can still be useful to familiarize oneself with current cosmological data.  If a scientific model ever contradicts logic, the model can be known to be false with absolute certainty, and can be tossed aside without worry.


Quantum Physics

The last of the three scientific disciplines, quantum physics, deals with the study of matter on a subatomic level.  At this point, conventional expectations about physics might be defied--particles allegedly behave quite differently on the subatomic level than they seem to in our experiences.  According to some, the material world even changes when observed or does not even exist apart from being observed.  If true, this would not mean that all of reality changes based upon observation, or that all of reality would cease to exist if all consciousnesses stopped existing, despite the asinine comments of some (see [3] for why logic and space cannot not exist, meaning they are mind-independent).

I have never observed the quantum realm directly, so I have no way of knowing if scientists are accurate when they make various claims about quantum physics.  The only thing I know for sure about the quantum realm is that logic governs the entirety of it.  Still, the philosophical nature of quantum physics is overt.  If matter changes when observed by a consciousness, then quantum physics becomes relevant to discussions of certain forms of metaphysical idealism.


These three disciplines are the key areas of science relevant to contemporary philosophy (not that science is divorced from philosophy, for it is inescapably drenched in philosophical ideas), and, thus, they are the aspects of science that anyone who loves both metaphysics and science would want to follow most closely.  Logic will always render science unneeded when it comes to understanding the majority of philosophical matters, but some people still derive pleasure from scientific knowledge.  I still subjectively find science fascinating despite the intrinsic fallibility of the scientific method!  It can certainly prove useful to be familiar with contemporary science when its ramifications overlap with philosophical pursuits.


[1].  See here:
A.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-immateriality-of-consciousness.html
B.  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/09/explaining-free-will.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-uncaused-cause.html

[3].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-impossibility-of-absolutely-nothing.html