While I agree that scientists are generally poorly equipped to handle
non-empirical philosophy, this type of philosophy, on the other hand, often
has little impact on the way that science is done. For instance, the idea
that science is that which can be falsified has little influence on the way
that my laboratory functions. Not many of us write research grant
applications that are based on trying to disprove some hypothesis.
Scientists may make poor philosophers, but philosophers probably do not make
good scientists.
i think that Bill Hamilton gave a very good response to this statement of
Chuck's.
BH:
>Ideally, yes. But the conclusions philosophers of science draw may be seen
>as impractical, irrelevant, naive or destructive by the practitioners of
>the sciences whose philosophical questions they try to "settle". J. P.
>Moreland has addressed the question of whether creationism can be declared
>nonscience, for example. His arguments in my view establish that with
>science suitably defined, he's correct. But a practitioner of evolutionary
>biology would probably object that Moreland's arguments have not shown him
>how he can, empirically, include divine causation in his discipline.
>Still, I agree that many scientists (as well as engineers) are not experts
>in the philosophy of science, and it would be good for them to improve
>their understanding of this field and how it applies to their discipline.
Cheers,
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"To disdain philosophy is really to be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal, Pensees
__________________________________________________________________________