Schelling’s Philosophy of Science

Abstract Does it make sense to speak of a philosophy of science in the work of the German idealist F. W. J. Schelling, despite the ambiguity of the word Wissenschaft at the time and given Schelling’s project of a philosophy of nature? I argue that Schelling does have a relatively consistent conception of science, and that his conception should not be understood solely by reference to his philosophy of nature. I show that what Schelling means by “science” is a form of knowledge based on the need to “construct” its objects, which leads him to an original conception of what an experiment is. I also show that it is necessary to distinguish between Schelling’s very early texts (1794–1795), in which science is conceived without reference to experimentation, and texts from 1797 onward in which experimentation becomes an integral part of what science is. This involves an original understanding of the experimental method, which needs to be distinguished from the Baconian tradition as well as from the German tradition exemplified by Goethe.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Perspectives on Science
Published
2025-01-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1162/posc.a.2
Primary Topic
Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Schelling’s Philosophy of Science

Raphaël Authier
Perspectives on Science
Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
article

Schelling’s Philosophy of Science

Raphaël Authier
article en

Abstract

Abstract Does it make sense to speak of a philosophy of science in the work of the German idealist F. W. J. Schelling, despite the ambiguity of the word Wissenschaft at the time and given Schelling’s project of a philosophy of nature? I argue that Schelling does have a relatively consistent conception of science, and that his conception should not be understood solely by reference to his philosophy of nature. I show that what Schelling means by “science” is a form of knowledge based on the need to “construct” its objects, which leads him to an original conception of what an experiment is. I also show that it is necessary to distinguish between Schelling’s very early texts (1794–1795), in which science is conceived without reference to experimentation, and texts from 1797 onward in which experimentation becomes an integral part of what science is. This involves an original understanding of the experimental method, which needs to be distinguished from the Baconian tradition as well as from the German tradition exemplified by Goethe.

Perspectives on ScienceVol. 33(4)
KU Leuven (BE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 93%
Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.