Philosophy of science: key concepts and approaches

Holism and Hempel's Theory Of Science

Hempel's main theory of science dealt with what many called logical positivism. It was also often called logical empiricism -- a term which Hempel embraced. He did not like the 'positivism' label, because he felt it was unscientific in nature and based in metaphysical issues that he had no desire to become involved with. Basically, the theory stated that empiricism (the belief that one has to have observational evidence in order to understand the world) and rationalism that dealt with mathematical and logical deductions should be (and are) combined to make a person's clear and proper view of the world (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006). In short, the whole is the sum of the parts, so understanding the parts means understanding all of the whole (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006). The rise in this kind of viewpoint in Germany stemmed mostly as a response to Hegel, and grew quite quickly.

Holism, however, states that the whole is much more than the sum of its parts (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006). The belief in holism is that there is much more to what is seen in the world than the breakdown of the parts that make it up can show. For Hempel's theory of science, the problem that holism poses is a serious one. Holism and the idea that things are more than the sum of their parts is in direct contrast to Hempel's logical empiricism and the opinion that the parts make up all of the whole (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006). In refuting holism, Hempel stated that scientific means are much more provable -- and therefore, valid -- than metaphysical means. He disagreed with holism, and felt that it was not able to be proven, so it could not be true for him or for society overall.

While this was a common way of thinking in his day and is still often seen as a common way of thinking in the scientific community, it is not enough of an argument against the beliefs of others. Hempel's response is not adequate, because it is often impossible to discount things just because one cannot prove them. If that were true, religious people everywhere would be forced to discount the existence of the God they believe in. While it is true that the existence of God cannot be scientifically proven, it also cannot be scientifically unproven. That is the realm in which Hempel makes his mistake. Because science has shown him one thing, he discounts anything else. Keeping an open mind is not something he appears to be interested in -- even going so far as to quibble over what the work he is involved with is called so the name does not sound too 'metaphysical' (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006).

When Hempel was doing his work, there were strong and strict divides between the scientific and the metaphysical, with a lot of people insisting that a person could have no interest in both. The groups of that day were divided on their beliefs and opinions, and they were not willing to look at the differences that they had and how they could be bridged (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006). The mentality that they were right and everyone else was wrong was all-pervading, and Hempel picked up on that. In that sense, he was a victim of his time period. He may have felt very differently if he were alive today, because science, technology, and even the study of metaphysics have advanced a great deal. Hempel was a scientist, but he was a bit of a philosopher, as well (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006).

That is a large part of the reason why his opinions on the issue seem odd. Philosophers are often willing to consider the possibilities and implications of something more being 'out there' and available to them and the rest of the world, but Hempel appeared to have no interest in that. By insisting that the parts made up the whole, and that the whole could be simply broken back down into those parts, Hempel cheated himself out of a lot of other ideas and issues that he could have considered and studied. He was a man of his convictions, but sometimes that can be problematic, because people who view their convictions as things that are set in stone and can never be re-examined often fail to grow as human beings.

Holism really did not have to pose a problem for Hempel, either, because he could have just discounted it and moved on. It was not necessary for him to spend any time refuting it or dealing with it. For men of science, though, the goal often becomes to prove themselves right and also to prove everyone else wrong, which are not the same issue (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006). Just because one proves that something is scientifically accurate does not mean that there are no other scientifically accurate yet different things out there. In order for Hempel's response to holism to be accurate, Hempel would have needed to not only prove himself right, but to prove the defenders of holism wrong -- and that was not something that he adequately handled during his lifetime (Sarkar & Pfeifer, 2006).