Does science depend on philosophy, or vice versa? What does it mean that philosophers are taking the role of theoretical scientists? Thanks.

Comments

I suppose I don't think philosophy (in general) depends on science, nor does it seem plausible that science depends on philosophy. With respect to the former--it's hard to see how science could possibly help very much with a range of philosophical issues (e.g., vagueness, the nature of modality, the metaphysics of mathematical entities or musical works). And it's also hard to see how science (in general) could depend on philosophy. What would that amount to? Scientific investigation doesn't seem as if it has to wait on (or for) philosophical approval. But this doesn't mean the two don't have anything to do with one another. Much of the most interesting recent philosophy (at least the philosophy that interests me) is profoundly influenced and inspired by science--it looks to science for data to be accommodated, it is inspired by scientific theorizing (i.e., it is explanatory rather than analytic), and it holds consistency with our best scientific theories to be one of the most important criteria for evaluating a philosophical theory. I guess there are some philosophers who function as something like theoretical scientists, and what this suggests to me is that there are important continuities between the two domains of inquiry. There are even philosophers who are taking on the role of experimental scientists (see the experimental philosophy website), and this seems like a good thing. If there's an empirical question that a philosopher is interested in, it simply won't do to wait around for scientists to tackle it.

Read another response by Aaron Meskin

Read another response about Philosophy, Science