Question I've had as good a time as anyone else discussing armchair philosophy based on cosmology and human nature, but now take the position that it would be professional negligence to engage in same without a firm grounding in e.g. particle physics and evolutionary biology. Other than a Dan Dennett (on evolutionary bio side), who are some contemporary philosophers who are exploring this space? For example, I would love to read the extent to which Aristotle survives or thrives in the light of scientific discoveries over the intervening millenia.

Accepted:
July 19, 2010

Comments

I agree that philosophers should engage with relevant science. But of course, what science (if any) is relevant depends very much on what philosophical questions you are tangling with.

If you are concerned with the metaphysics of time, for example, then you'll no doubt want to know something of what various kinds of physicist doing foundational work on relativity, etc., are thinking (but you needn't care at all about e.g. neuroscience). If you are concerned with the philosophy of mind then you'll probably want to know something of neuroscience and experimental psychology (but you won't care about cosmology). If you are interested in whether numbers are objects in Frege's sense, or under what circumstances abortion is permissable, or in how names latch on to the world, or whether a non-minimal state is justified, you won't care much about either neuroscienc e or cosmology, or about evolutionary biology either.

So what science, if any, you need a "firm grounding" in as a philosopher will evidently depend on your particular interests. And as the literature on various areas of philosophy attests, many philosophers are indeed up to speed on the relevant science, when it is appropriate: for instance, lots of philosophers of mind know an impressive amount about what other, more scientific, investigators into the mind are up to!