Sida Liu

Science can be thought of as firmly grounded—it operates close to the earth, where everything is tangible and can be directly observed or measured. It is constrained by the scientific method, focusing on precise exploration and concrete conclusions based on evidence. Philosophy, on the other hand, is like something floating above the ground, encompassing a broader perspective. It sees not only the ground but also the air above, enabling it to explore realms that are beyond immediate evidence, including abstract ideas and possibilities.

Philosophical conclusions are often more speculative and less reliable than scientific conclusions, but they are valuable because they provide a broader scope. From its elevated vantage point, philosophy can connect disparate ideas and envision possibilities that science, restricted by evidence, may miss. This broader vision is where philosophy finds its strength, even if its conclusions lack the empirical certainty of science.

In this sense, science can be seen as a focused part of philosophy—a kind of philosophy constrained by the rigor of the scientific method. Physics, for instance, emerged from philosophical thought, and by imposing the scientific method’s demands for testing and observation, it became a specialized subset of how we explore and understand reality.

Similarly, different types of scientific papers reflect this balance. Primary research papers are rooted in rigorous methods and empirical data, representing the more “grounded” nature of science. In contrast, survey, review, and perspective articles have a philosophical flavor; they float a little above the ground. These papers synthesize existing knowledge, speculate on future directions, and connect broader concepts, much like philosophy, giving them a scope that is wider and more interpretive.