Why are philosophy of science courses important? Why should philosophy of science be a required course in engineering?

Philosophy of science courses are very important. I think philosophy of science should be a required course in engineering.

 

Philosophy of science is very important. It deals with the discovery and specification of problems, clear thinking and expression, argumentation and persuasion, and so on, which are not only essential foundations for the major, but also have great importance even when considered separately from the major.
There are two philosophy of science courses offered at Seoul National University: ‘Philosophical Understanding of Science’ and ‘Critical Thinking in Science’. Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ and Giere’s ‘Understanding Scientific Reasoning’ are used as textbooks, respectively. As the names of the courses suggest, they are both about science.
This is not to say that the foundational disciplines may be more important to the performance of a major, or that the other core liberal arts are any less important. However, I do not believe that philosophy of science and philosophy of science should be offered as a required liberal arts course, and the reason for this is not the simple fact that they are humanities courses about science, but that they have a special meaning that other liberal arts courses do not have.
There is an aspect of high school science courses in Korea that may be fatally lacking. While it may vary from person to person, in general, STEM students spend their school years grappling with basic problem-solving exercises in math and science. The problem is that while math is based on logic, science subjects like physics and chemistry are heavily based on problem solving, despite their different nature. Physics is a unique kind of math. Everything is solved by applying formalized formulas. Applying formulas to problems is an important part of physics, but it doesn’t provide a foundation for understanding the meaning of the science and the development of theories. There is no need to worry about solving problems with answers that fall to whole numbers without decimals. The formulas that give answers when substituted are always perfect theories. Science is only as good and accurate as it is. The science that has been put under intense pressure is a very small part of the established science. This background is likely to lead to misunderstandings and uncritical attitudes towards science.
A course in philosophy of science allows students to examine the nature of science itself, rather than treating it as something to be known, by covering the origins of science, philosophical reflections on methods of argumentation, and critical analysis of hypotheses and models. This experience is unique because it provides students with a proper and deep understanding of science as it relates to their major, as well as a liberal arts education. Philosophy of science can help science students break out of their narrow mindedness and ensure that their course of study is not just an extension of high school. It breaks the mold for students who are used to memorizing the same formulas and theories, and gives them a more accurate and deeper understanding of science, as well as the ability to think critically about it.
In addition, philosophy of science can be very helpful for students who are about to study a much more specialized subject than they have been used to. Critical thinking is often talked about as an attitude to have, and one of the reasons for this is that when you look at something critically, you actually gain a clearer understanding of it in the process. Philosophy of science can also have a positive impact in this regard when it comes to learning a subject. As much as the fundamental disciplines are key tools for academic work, philosophy of science can be helpful, and perhaps even a weapon instead of a tool. It can help students do more than just be a little better at English and a little better at math.
To summarize, philosophy of science is more important than the other disciplines in the core liberal arts because it is not just a general peripheral knowledge, but it is directly related to the student’s major. The historical and philosophical awareness that philosophy of science provides is not something that can be provided in the major or even in the basic sciences; they are inevitably products of science, and an understanding of science as a discipline can only really be attempted in philosophy of science. Second, philosophy of science can be just as helpful in academic endeavors as the skills that the foundational courses in the basic areas of the discipline develop.
The problem with high school education that makes philosophy of science seem so important is actually the ideal solution: reading. Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the top 100 recommended books by Seoul National University in Korea. If students were to read books naturally, the importance of philosophy of science would be a subjective matter. However, it is not unreasonable to say that it is very difficult for students to read in the midst of their hectic lives in college, as they do not have much experience with reading even in high school. At the very least, the fact that science and engineering students who voluntarily read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are likely to occupy a small corner of the overall normal distribution is an important premise of this article.
The idea of creating an atmosphere of reading is probably too unrealistic in Korea, which has always been competitive and hierarchical. At the end of the day, students need a solid foundation in science, and universities are the place where this can and should happen. If the ideal of a university is to educate students as true intellectuals, then it is in line with that goal. For science students, philosophy of science is about knowing the history and nature of their discipline, and having an understanding of it can make all the difference in the world.
Just as it is foolish to think about the future without knowing history, I think that learning only accumulated knowledge without knowing the roots and history of science is no different from becoming a mere technician. There is no reason to say that one major is more efficient than the other, but at least philosophy of science is essential to producing real engineers, not just technicians.