Timeline for Why have those scientists who rejected or opposed philosophy, still succeeded?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 14, 2016 at 22:29 | history | edited | user8572 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
I elucidated and emended ambiguity, diction, formatting, orthography, and/or syntax.
|
| May 13, 2016 at 22:23 | comment | added | virmaior | I think there's several things that are jumping around in the question which makes it so that fundamentally the scientists are not denying at least one part of philosophy even as they verbally deny the term and a caricature. In other words, their success is dependent on consistency (learned or incidental) with certain parts of philosophy. | |
| May 13, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | Era | @virmaior There's no doubt in my mind that some of the greatest scientists have also been some of the worst philosophers, but I'm not really sure that's relevant. The question is about being a successful scientist, so while I agree with the statement about ignorance, it doesn't imply that scientists are wrong to dismiss philosophy (wrong from their perspective I mean, with respect to being successful as a scientist). | |
| May 13, 2016 at 2:12 | comment | added | user16869 | @virmaior you made a meta-joke about Groundhog Day! | |
| May 13, 2016 at 2:08 | comment | added | virmaior | Nice one. And those who do are doomed to watch the same movie over and over again. | |
| May 13, 2016 at 2:05 | comment | added | user16869 | @virmaior "Those who do not study Philosophy are doomed to repeat it." | |
| May 13, 2016 at 1:29 | comment | added | virmaior | @Era I would also say it's not clear they know what qualifies as "philosophy" when they dismiss it. Many a decent scientist has dismissed philosophy only to go on and write terrible and uninformed philosophy. | |
| May 12, 2016 at 19:50 | comment | added | ChristopherE | The work in current philosophy of science. Criticizing philosophy of science by way of criticizing Kuhn, for instance, is a bit like criticizing pre-plate tectonics geology, in terms of relative distance from now. | |
| May 12, 2016 at 18:58 | comment | added | Era | "scientists have remarked – I think with considerable ignorance – that they don't have any use for the academic field" - What is it exactly that you think they are ignorant of? | |
| May 12, 2016 at 12:14 | history | answered | ChristopherE | CC BY-SA 3.0 |