Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
This was an interesting article, but I would add to it in simpler terms. Science answers empirical questions; philosophy guides which questions to ask. This is not the realm of science and never will be. It is, however, the realm of scientists, since they are the ones asking the questions. For this reason, my skin crawls whenever I hear scientists disparaging philosophy. Scientists should be taught philosophy in graduate school, but, sadly, the pressures of researching and publishing new data always take precedent (gotta follow the money). This is to the detriment of the science community, because it leads to a lot of misguided studies and loads of misinterpreted data. Any of you young aspiring scientists out there should read Bennett and Hacker's Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, even if neuroscience isn't your field (thundara I'm looking at you!). It is the best text on the interface of science and philosophy that I have ever come across.
One point I would take exception with the author on: economics isn't a purely philosophical discipline. I agree its treated that way by many people (this guy is a business prof, so he probably works in econ). But, economics should be dome empirically to the fullest extent possible. Doing economics as a philosophical exercise leads to ridiculous ideas like Marxism and free market worship.