Philosophy and Science, by Laura R*ding Author: Doctor Terence Rajivan Edward Abstract. I present an attempt to imitate the style of earlier pieces from Laura Riding's book Anarchism is not Enough, which identifies three conceptions of the relationship between philosophy and science. I was interested in to what extent the virtues of analytic philosophy can be absorbed by philosophically-minded literary writers. In this particular case, there is a mild cost to clarity in my opinion, and a heavy cost to etiquette! There may be traces of other literary ingredients. Draft version: version 1 (online 18th September 2026, originally written 15th May 2021) PDF available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/414470999_Philosophy_and_Science_by_Laura_Rding There is an old contract between philosophy and science and a new lack of contract. There is an old knowing your place and a new not knowing your place. 1. In the old contract, every discipline is rational or it is no discipline, every discipline is systematic or it is no discipline, so every discipline is a science and philosophy is a science. But philosophy in the old contract is more than just one among sciences. Philosophy is Queen of the Sciences. Each science, each attempted science, is based on assumptions, but only philosophy identifies these assumptions, only philosophy determines their acceptability. 2. Between the old contract and the new lack of contract is nothing. No, this is not exactly what I mean; there is the illusion of something. There is a weakling philosophy which makes no claim of royalty. Each discipline has its questions, each has its methods. Philosophy has its questions and methods, while physics - it is always physics! - has its questions and methods. "Ungracious pretender, don't you know this is a democratic age? Your rights to your land, my rights to mine!" But this weakling philosophy, this respectful democratic citizen, is just the Queen disguised as a little old lady with a postal vote. Is not one of philosophy's questions still what are the essential assumptions of X, where X is any attempted science you like? And is not another question still are these assumptions acceptable or not? 3. There are questions but once questions are tidied up and proper methods are available, they leave philosophy for another discipline, or so it is said. But all the good questions have left. It is a mother (or father, if you like) whose children have all been taken away, all but some very bad children, not worth taking care of, whom it disowns. Now philosophy looks at other disciplines' questions and figures out ways of contributing by its own lazy (or clever, if you like) methods. Philosophy targets humble but proud empirical researchers – fieldworkers busy taking notes, laboratory scientists busy measuring, historians busy digging into sources - who then say, "We've been infected by philosophy!" Philosophy is a parasitic discipline. There is an old contract and a new lack of contract; but parasitism, chaps, is not enough. Reference Riding, Laura. 1928. Anarchism is not enough. London: Jonathan Cape. Further reading Daly, Chris and Liggins, David. 2011. Deferentialism. Philosophical Studies 156: 321-337. Available at: https://philpapers.org/archive/DALD.pdf D'Oro, Giuseppina. 2011. The Myth of Collingwood's Historicism. Inquiry 53: 627-641. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233456900_The_Myth_of_Collingwood%27s_Historicism_Inquiry_2010_536_pp_627_-_641 Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2014. Deferentialism and the Territory of Philosophy. Ethos: Dialogues in Philosophy and Social Sciences 7 (1):56-62. Available at: https://philpapers.org/archive/EDWDAT-2.pdf Edward, Terence Rajivan. 2014. Anthropology in the context that produced it. Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy 6 (1):347-360. Available at: https://www.metajournal.org//issues_pdf/meta-vi-i-june-2014.pdf And: https://philpapers.org/rec/EDWAIT And: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296162352_Anthropology_in_the_context_that_produced_it