3 ms·

But the original assertion does not mention any specifics: "it fails to mention how exactly philosophy of science has been or is to be useful to scientists" It

But the original assertion does not mention any specifics: "it fails to mention how exactly philosophy of science has been or is to be useful to scientists" It just says "useful to scientists". I feel that my argument shows quite clearly how philosophy can be useful to scientists - maybe not in the actually practice of doing science (as that is practicing science - not practicing philosophy), but definitely useful for the scientist when he attempts to integrate his scientific findings or practice with the surrounding culture. One might take this question, 'How is philosophy useful to the practice of science', flip it around, and come at it using your approach: How is science useful to to the practice of philosophy? Well, the answer there, since we've focussed on the actual practice instead of general utility, is that science isn't very useful to the practice of philosophy. EDIT: I should qualify that last statement - scientific discoveries, when they overlap with assertions made by philosophers, can help to invalidate inaccurate philosophical assertions, and lend support to valid statements. So it can be helpful during the validation stage of the philosophical process.

jules 11y ago
There are good answers to that question, but let's answer that in the same style that you answered, albeit a lot more concretely: cars rely on science, philosophers use cars, therefore science is useful to philosophy.
- jmcmichael 11y ago
  Cars do not rely on science, primarily. The existence of cars is primarily due to engineers developing technology (a different process than that of science), not scientists doing science. If you believe that science can explain everything, your conceptual map widens the concept of 'science' to include practically everything that refers to the objective world, making the concept less useful for precise thought about epistemology. And philosophy is more directly useful to scientists than cars are to philosophers. For one thing you're comparing a concrete artifact to epistemological processes. We're comparing processes, not artifacts. The concepts developed by philosophers have direct relevance to scientists, see my examples above.

jules 11y ago

There are good answers to that question, but let's answer that in the same style that you answered, albeit a lot more concretely: cars rely on science, philosophers use cars, therefore science is useful to philosophy.

jmcmichael 11y ago
Cars do not rely on science, primarily. The existence of cars is primarily due to engineers developing technology (a different process than that of science), not scientists doing science. If you believe that science can explain everything, your conceptual map widens the concept of 'science' to include practically everything that refers to the objective world, making the concept less useful for precise thought about epistemology. And philosophy is more directly useful to scientists than cars are to philosophers. For one thing you're comparing a concrete artifact to epistemological processes. We're comparing processes, not artifacts. The concepts developed by philosophers have direct relevance to scientists, see my examples above.