4 ms·

I think there’s an inherent tension between what philosophers are trying to do and what practitioners in specific fields are trying to do that leads to the bad

I think there’s an inherent tension between what philosophers are trying to do and what practitioners in specific fields are trying to do that leads to the bad blood. If you’re a philosopher, you’re generally trying to look at things from a general enough perspective that you might argue for a radical shift in the way we do things and call out the assumptions that are otherwise taken as axioms of the field—the water we swim around in. If you’re a practitioner, you’re focused on swimming. Core axioms and prevailing theory are your presuppositions—you’re just focused on getting things done within the confines of the prevailing theory/framework, perhaps nudging it every so often in particular directions based on new discoveries—its quite rare that a working scientist sparks an actual theoretic revision and becomes the next Einstein (see thomas Kuhn). So yes, philosophers are totally useless when it comes to getting practical stuff done because that’s generally not the space they are attempting to help with or illuminate.

btilly 5y ago
That isn't the problem. The problem is that philosophers believe that they know things from first principles which, in fact, have been falsified by science. Therefore the thing that they are saying is wrong. See https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helpe... for a famous such clash. Please be assured that legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap.
- morelisp 5y ago
  > legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap. I don't know, this case is somewhat infamous, but it really speaks more to the Nobel committee's own biases than the field of philosophy. Bergson was prolific and influential, but also unpopular within many philosophical circles outside of the Francosphere, and also inside it by the time the post-structuralists came along. Anyway, wait until you find out what the legions of lesser scientists have been up to since 1921...

btilly 5y ago

That isn't the problem. The problem is that philosophers believe that they know things from first principles which, in fact, have been falsified by science. Therefore the thing that they are saying is wrong. See https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helpe... for a famous such clash. Please be assured that legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap.

morelisp 5y ago
> legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap. I don't know, this case is somewhat infamous, but it really speaks more to the Nobel committee's own biases than the field of philosophy. Bergson was prolific and influential, but also unpopular within many philosophical circles outside of the Francosphere, and also inside it by the time the post-structuralists came along. Anyway, wait until you find out what the legions of lesser scientists have been up to since 1921...