4 ms·
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, philosop
by 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 agoCars 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.