In its western origins, philosophy was indistinguishable from what we now call science. It embraced the totality of knowledge, when all that was known about the world could still be mastered by a single person. As late as the mid-nineteenth century, the study of biology, physics and chemistry were referred to as “natural philosophy.”
It is only with the massive acceleration of scientific knowledge that philosophy broke free and adopted its current location, outside of science, floating in a kind of meta-sphere of its own. Today, even the “philosophy of science” implies one step removed, with philosophy peering through the laboratory window, as it were, from somewhere outside.
There are good and bad consequences. On the negative side, philosophers can careen along with a blithe indifference to empirical data. They can make up stories about reality that are internally consistent but dodge the hard test of evidence. Conversely, scientists can be lured into assuming that science itself represents the totality of knowledge, or potential knowledge—a delusion known as “naturalism” that is surprisingly common in the higher reaches of the scientific community.
On the positive side, philosophy can benefit from a certain distance from science. Rather than generating new data, it can help us revisit the data we already possess with a fresh eye. Through the practice of philosophy, we can cultivate better ways of knowing what we already know. In the Age of Google, it is tempting to attack every challenge by piling on more information. Sometimes, what we need is not another page of search results, but a better way of thinking.