[quoting Tripp, 22 Feb 96.a] Jerry Fodor says that philosophy is what you do until you understand something well enough to do science. Judging by the amount of philosophy in instructional design, I would say we don't understand it well enough to do science. But, I would argue that there is some movement on this subject in other disciplines, and we are very close to reaching the Poles.
Argh. It's exactly this kind of distinction that makes it impossible to discuss a point. Who on earth can talk about this in terms of philosophy vs. science, as though they were divorced and forever antagonistic modes of inquiry? Arguing for the superiority of one over the other completely ignores the validity of both. Take Freud, if you will. A great scientist, trying to find empirical evidence to explain neurological, and later more ephemeral "mental," illness, building on his findings to explain the recurring symbols in dreams, the slips we unconsciously make while speaking--and also actively engaged in philosophy, answering larger questions about culture. The fact that Civilization and Its Discontents doesn't include chapters on methodology, and feature detailed experimentation on whole societies, does not lessen its impact and importance.
Again, I'm not denying that a scientific approach has its place in the creation of effective instruction, and in understanding why it was effective. However, philosophy has the space to address larger questions, the feeling-out of why something works, the ability to generalize past a set of tiny, precise findings.
Why must there be a conflict? Two modes of inquiry--two different approaches.