Before the 19th century natural science was part of philosophy. It was called ‘natural philosophy’ (usually) or ‘experimental philosophy’ (Newton). Philosophy provided the background and justification for the development of empirical methods to study the world. Natural science pre-supposed and depended on philosophy.
By the 19th century the discipline matured so that it could be considered separate from philosophy and the word “science” was coined. The methods of science were different from the methods of philosophy. Many scientific societies arose that regulated the growing body of scientific activities. Science became more like mathematics, a discipline organized by its practitioners around its own methods and criteria and not accountable to outsiders.
Science studied “nature” and devised “explanations” whereas philosophy talked about “what exists” and “reality” (metaphysics) as well as “what is knowable” and “truth” (epistemology). Increasingly, the question of what science has to do with truth and reality was not addressed by scientists except to say “science works”. An anti-philosophical attitude arose among scientists who contrasted their discipline and its widespread agreement and practical results with philosophy which led only to useless wrangling.
By the 20th century every discipline aspired to be “scientific”, to emulate the methods and successes of natural science. Philosophers tried to make philosophy scientific, focusing on a narrow range of problems amenable to systematization or declaring that “there is no first philosophy” (Quine). Philosophy pre-supposed and depended on science, the exact opposite of the historical relationship.
2007