I’m a bit puzzled…
I’m a bit puzzled by the tack taken by several defenders of philosophy in this thread. For example:
Rikurzhen: “At its best, analytical philosophy relies on falsification, permits empirical solutions, and enjoys a marketplace of ideas.”
Steve: “Philosophy does have a role to play in science.”
Frank: “Philosophy such as his does more, by way of lucid logical processes informed by the current state of scientific knowledge, to discredit theism, or creationism than mere data-crunching. A truly philosophy-averse “scientist” is little more than a technician.”
Steve: “I agree with you to an extent and had outlined some ways I think philosophy is useful.”
It’s not that I necessarily disagree with claims such as these; but I wonder whether they really get at the underlying issue. There may very well be good reasons to think that philosophy is, in some ways, useful to empirical science. But does an intellectual discipline need to be useful to empirical science to be worth pursuing? If so, Jesus, why?
Anticopyright.