The purpose of this paper is to interject an alternate mood and basis for the doing of the philosophy of science. The mood is one of 'feeling' and the basis is one of Jungian psychology. The paper argues that there are many bases for the doing of the philosophy of science and that the logic of science is only one of these. To dismiss all applications of psychology out of hand with the charge (or label) of psychologism is as bad and as much a disease as psychologism itself.
This essay is a direct response to a paper prepared by Prof. Thomas A.
Cowan for presentation at a Symposium on the Philosophy of Science sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In his paper, 'The Game of Science' [1], Prof. Cowan called for the development of an aesthetic science. Taking his inspiration directly from Herman Hesse's Magister Ludi, Prof. Cowan developed the theme of an aesthetic science as a 'game' in the Nietzschean sense with scientists as players self-consciously engaged in creative and spontaneous play. As I interpret it, instead of being bound to play only for truth, e.g., 'facts', an aesthetic science would be free to play for beauty. An aesthetic science, as I conceive of it, would choose a problem and a method of solution only if they involved either the application or the development of interesting aesthetic principles.
This essay is an attempt to imagine what other sciences of the future might look like. It's spirit is one of allowing feeling and intuition their fullest expression in questioning our current notions of what constitutes science. The intent is to show that our current notions are bound more by our own self-imposed constraints than they are by any natural constraints.
The emphasis on feeling and intuition accounts in part for the essay's somewhat unorthodox style and language (e.g., its often whimsical quality). The other part of its unorthodoxy is due to its attempt to speak to both the scientists and the artist simultaneously. The overriding concern is to stimulate and encourage -in fact, even to provoke -other scientists and artists to go beyond the distinctions that have traditionally separated art from science and science from art. The ultimate aim is to Theory and Decision 2 (1972) 274--290.