05.15.08
Science and philosophy
Comment on Experimental philosophy:
The question is: do philosophers need to be scientists (specialists) beside being philosophers?
I think the dilemma is false, and a sign of the age of specialization we live in. And of the attitude of reductionist scientists who arrogantly think they have transcended philosophy. There is no absolute division between philosophy and science. The easiest way to consider that is in terms of Kant, whose response to Newtonian physics was to consider the hidden metaphysical premises latent in science itself. And the inability of science to create the correct foundation for a discourse on freedom and ethics in the context of causal science. His resolution of the problem in the framework of transcendental idealism should be understood by all scientists, instead we see this extremely limited attitude of scientism adopting the posture of omniscience with respect to all knowledge. The result is a betrayal of science, what to say of its incomprehension of philosophy.
Facebook » Science and philosophy said,
May 15, 2008 at 8:54 pm
[...] http://darwiniana.com wrote an interesting post today on Science and philosophyHere’s a quick excerpt Comment on Experimental philosophy: The question is: do philosophers need to be scientists (specialists) beside being philosophers? I think the dilemma is false, and a sign of the age of specialization we live in. And of the attitude of reductionist scientists who arrogantly think they have transcended philosophy. There is no absolute division between philosophy and science. The easiest way to consider that is in terms of Kant, whose response to Newtonian physics was to consider the hidden me [...]
Stephen P. Smith said,
May 15, 2008 at 10:21 pm
I feel that philosophy works in the negative, to return science to an empiricism that holds limits.