crimsonjackal8 said:Scientists frequently forget that science can't exist without philosophy...
And that’s a problem.
😎
I’ll grant you that at the level of the most abstract, sweeping theories, science and philosophy become one—and philosophy definitely tackles those big-picture questions that go beyond raw data, looking at the very foundations of scientific inquiry and what all these discoveries actually mean for us. But—and this is a big but—
1. In actual day-to-day practice, most scientists don't interact with philosophy at all; a brilliant researcher doesn't need to know the first thing about Carnap, Wittgenstein, Kuhn, or Popper to do their job effectively...
2. Philosophers often don't really grasp the science itself. You see them offering interpretations of research results that are completely off base—sort of like someone getting drunk and making wild claims about a single study without having any clue how the entire field actually functions.
3. There was a time when philosophy actually led the way, feeding scientists new ideas, methods, and hypotheses. Nowadays, though, it feels more like philosophy is playing catch-up, trying to make sense of the chaotic flood of scientific and technological breakthroughs we've seen over the last century. Are they even succeeding?
Basically, I don't think we're ever going to see a grand reconciliation or a unified theory of "life, the universe, and everything"...
I could probably pull a mountain of examples from the fields of psychology and cognitive science to illustrate this—if I ever find the time or the motivation. 🙄