Speaker: Erik Angner

Title: "Why behavioral science needs philosophy – and vice versa"

Abstract: In 1976, Mario Bunge advocated a “vigorous and symmetrical interaction between science and philosophy, to close the gap between the two camps and to develop a scientific philosophy and a science with philosophical awareness.” The aim of this paper is to defend both parts of Bunge’s thesis, viz., that philosophical conclusions are relevant to empirical research – but also, and more controversially, that empirical research is relevant to philosophical conclusions. Drawing on a series of fine-grained examples from behavioral science, I will outline various ways in which behavioral science depends on philosophical assumptions. In addition, I will review several ways in which the relevant bits of philosophy depend on empirical premises. The upshot is that the relationship between behavioral science and philosophy is remarkably symmetric: just like scientists cannot avoid making philosophical assumptions, philosophers often cannot help but proceed from empirical premises. The argument suggests a picture according to which science and philosophy stand in a symbiotic relationship, with scientists and philosophers engaging in a mutually beneficial exchange of ideas for the advancement of the general knowledge. The argument also has implications for the way we teach and practice behavioral science and philosophy alike – in particular, the responsible organization of the relevant epistemic communities. I conclude by endorsing Bunge's recommendation that “philosophers should become apprentices rather than lawgivers, and participants rather than onlookers” – and that the same thing is true for social and behavioral scientists.