Thomas Seebohm: Philosopher of Science
Thomas Seebohm (July 7, 1934 – August 25, 2014) was a distinguished phenomenological philosopher whose work spanned a wide array of topics, including Immanuel Kant, Edmund Husserl, hermeneutics, and logic. He was born in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, as the son of Hans-Christoph Seebohm, the German Minister of Transport. Seebohm’s academic journey began with a high school graduation in 1952, followed by cabinetmaking training from 1952 to 1954, during which he passed his journeyman’s examination in March 1954. He then pursued university studies at the universities of Hamburg, Bonn, Saarbrücken, and Mainz, focusing on philosophy, Slavic languages, Slavonic literature, and sociology. In 1960, he earned his PhD summa cum laude from the University of Mainz with a dissertation titled “Die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit der Transzendentalphilosophie,” which was later published in 1962.
Academic Career and Research Focus
Seebohm’s academic career included positions at the University of Mainz, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Trier, and the University of Heidelberg. He was a full professor of philosophy at Pennsylvania State University from 1973 to 1984 and later returned to the University of Mainz as a professor, succeeding Gerhard Funke. Throughout his tenure, he offered courses in German idealism, phenomenology, formal and formalized logic, and hermeneutics. His research interests were diverse, encompassing the history of philosophy, philosophy of history, philosophy of the formal sciences, methodology and philosophy of the human sciences, and the development of the history of philosophy in Eastern Europe. Despite this broad range, Seebohm was chiefly known as a phenomenologist, approaching all major issues from a transcendental phenomenological perspective.
A Legacy of Integrating Science and Philosophy
In his final work, History as a Science and the System of the Sciences, Seebohm explored the methodologies of the sciences and argued for a more integrated approach that recognizes the interplay between interpretative methods and empirical science. His work continues to inspire those interested in the intersections of philosophy and scientific methodology.
Thomas Seebohm’s work as a philosopher of science is distinguished by his comprehensive and systematic approach to understanding the foundations, methodologies, and epistemological status of various scientific disciplines. His contributions focus on bridging the gap between the human sciences (such as history, sociology, and psychology) and the natural sciences through the lens of phenomenology. Seebohm’s philosophy of science emphasizes the importance of interpretation, contextual understanding, and hermeneutics in scientific inquiry, particularly within the human and social sciences, which he believed could not be reduced to the empirical methods employed by the natural sciences.
On the relationship between first-order and second-order understanding:
“First-order understanding is blind without higher understanding, but higher understanding is empty without elementary understanding.”
— Thomas Seebohm, History as a Science and the System of the Sciences, 2015
1. Phenomenology as the Core of Seebohm’s Philosophy of Science
Seebohm’s philosophy of science is deeply rooted in phenomenology, particularly the Husserlian tradition, which emphasizes the study of consciousness and subjectivity in relation to the world. For Seebohm, phenomenology was not just a method for understanding consciousness but a framework for analyzing all forms of scientific inquiry, including those of the human and social sciences.
- Phenomenological analysis allows Seebohm to explore how different sciences engage with their objects of study, whether they are natural phenomena or human actions. He views science as inherently connected to human subjectivity and interpretation, with the natural sciences seeking objective explanation through empirical observation, and the human sciences focusing on interpretation and understanding of meanings, intentions, and cultural contexts.
- Seebohm’s approach emphasizes that scientific knowledge is not purely objective, especially in the human sciences, where the researcher’s interpretative role is central to the process of knowledge creation. History, for example, is seen as a science that involves reconstructing past realities through interpretation, while social sciences such as sociology or psychology must understand human meaning in context rather than simply explaining behavior through natural laws.
2. Interdisciplinary and Methodological Unity
One of Seebohm’s major contributions to the philosophy of science is his attempt to create a unified epistemological framework for understanding the relationship between the natural and human sciences. He was keen on showing how the human sciences (history, sociology, psychology) could be scientifically rigorous despite their focus on interpretation and contextual understanding, which are often seen as at odds with the causal explanation central to the natural sciences.
- Seebohm sought to demonstrate that the methods of the natural sciences (empirical observation, hypothesis testing, and causal explanation) are not the only legitimate means of acquiring knowledge. He argued that while the natural sciences deal with general laws and predictability (through causal mechanisms), the human sciences focus on meaning, understanding, and context, which require a different set of methods, including interpretative and hermeneutic methods.
- In History as a Science and the System of the Sciences, Seebohm examined how phenomenology could provide a common ground for both kinds of science. While natural sciences can use the methods of observation and experimentation to study phenomena in the world, human sciences are concerned with understanding individual human experience and social meaning through interpretation and contextual analysis.
3. Seebohm’s Systematic Phenomenological Analysis of the Sciences
Seebohm’s final work, History as a Science and the System of the Sciences (2015), provides a comprehensive and systematic analysis of the epistemological foundations and methodologies of various sciences. The book articulates how different fields of science can be understood through phenomenological analysis while respecting their unique methodologies. Here are some of Seebohm’s key ideas in the context of the philosophy of science:
- History as a science: Seebohm treats history as a scientific discipline that requires methodical interpretation. History does not merely accumulate facts but reconstructs them in their original context, making it a distinct form of science that relies on interpretation rather than causal explanation. He emphasizes that historical facts must be understood within their historical context, using philological and hermeneutic methods to interpret them.
- The human sciences: Seebohm’s analysis of the human sciences (such as sociology, psychology, and economics) emphasizes the importance of understanding human meaning rather than simply explaining it causally. He advocates for a hermeneutic approach, where human actions, social structures, and interactions are analyzed for their meanings and intentions rather than reduced to naturalistic explanations.
- The natural sciences: While Seebohm is sympathetic to the natural sciences and their empirical methods, he argues that they cannot be the sole paradigm for scientific knowledge. He suggests that while natural sciences focus on causal mechanisms, the human sciences require a more contextual and interpretive approach that acknowledges the subjective and meaning-based nature of human experiences.
- The system of the sciences: In his work, Seebohm sought to propose a systematic framework for understanding the relationship between all sciences. He argued that the different domains of knowledge (natural sciences, human sciences, and social sciences) could be understood in a unified way, without reducing one to the other. His phenomenological approach provided the epistemological foundation for understanding how various fields of study could be rigorously scientific, even when their methods and objects of study differ.
4. Seebohm’s Critique of Positivism and Scientism
Seebohm was a critic of positivism and scientism—the belief that the methods of the natural sciences are the only valid forms of knowledge. He argued that the human sciences, despite their focus on interpretation rather than causal explanation, should be recognized as scientific disciplines in their own right.
- Positivism sought to reduce all forms of knowledge to empirical, measurable data and causal laws, but Seebohm rejected this view in favor of a more pluralistic approach to science, one that allowed for both causal explanation (in the natural sciences) and interpretative understanding (in the human sciences).
- Seebohm believed that scientific rigor does not solely depend on the ability to produce predictive models or generalizable laws but also on the rigorous application of appropriate methods for each discipline. For Seebohm, phenomenology was the unifying thread that could guide these various methods, while respecting the unique concerns of each discipline.
5. Interpretation and Understanding in the Human Sciences
A central tenet of Seebohm’s philosophy of science is the idea that interpretation and understanding are the foundational activities in the human sciences. Unlike the natural sciences, which focus on explaining phenomena through causal laws, the human sciences are concerned with understanding the meaning of human actions, the intentions of individuals, and the social contexts in which they occur.
- Seebohm’s hermeneutics is key to his view of the human sciences. He argued that historical research and social science must rely on interpretative methods that take into account the cultural, social, and historical contexts of human behavior and thought. He emphasized that human actions and social structures must be understood from the perspective of those who created them, and this requires a hermeneutic approach that distinguishes the intentions behind human actions from their outcomes.
- Seebohm’s critique of positivism and scientism can be seen as part of a broader philosophical movement that advocates for the plurality of scientific methods, where interpretation is seen as just as valid a form of knowledge as causal explanation.
Conclusion: Seebohm as a Philosopher of Science
Thomas Seebohm’s contributions to the philosophy of science can be understood as a rigorous critique of reductionist paradigms, advocating for the legitimacy of interpretative methods alongside empirical methods. His philosophy of science emphasizes the importance of phenomenology in creating a unified framework for understanding different scientific disciplines while respecting their methodological distinctiveness. Seebohm’s work remains an important resource for philosophers of science, particularly those interested in bridging the gap between the natural and human sciences, and offers a pluralistic and phenomenologically grounded approach to science that recognizes the diverse ways in which knowledge can be acquired.