What makes you think that? I ask because I gave quite a few counter-examples. I can't personally think of any examples of scientists advancing the art and philosophers following them. Can you give some clue as to what you're talking about here?
Can you name any philosophers who have made significant contributions to any of the biological or physical sciences in the past two hundred years?
Ah, when you referred to 'the art' were you referring strictly to scientific advances in biological or physical science? And the likes of Popper don't count, presumably because their contrbution wasn't to 'the science.'
Fooloso4 wrote:As I mentioned before there is an ongoing debate in both philosophy and physics regarding falsification and what its opponents call the “popperazi”. I side with those who think that Popper’s falsification functions more as an obstruction than a reliable guide for what theoretical scientists are doing. I also touched on the demarcation problem. My view is that the best way to avoid pseudoscience is by learning to do mainstream science. The same holds for interpretation of results. Competent scientists do not need philosophers playing Monday morning quarterback.
Argueably, physicists don't, since much of the science is well established in it's methodology. Something like neurophysiology has more of an issue there. But there seems to be some confusion here. Philosophers are not so much concerned with documenting what scientists do as they are with what can or can not be established on the back of a given peice of emperical evidence.
Fooloso4 wrote:The fundamental question here is whether the philosophy of science is or should be descriptive or prescriptive.
I don't see it as either. I see it as about what theory and model can and can't be hung on a particular peice of experimental evidence.
Fooloso4 wrote:When all is said and done I think it comes down to results, and results are not limited to what is empirically verified but include new ways of thinking about and looking at things. Is the idea that inquiry should lead scientific investigation one that arises within and can be best addressed from within the purview of philosophy?
Depends on your paradigm. In a stable situation, where the paradigm is well-established, then it is all about the results, because the conclusions drawn are already part of a well-supported framework. A more frontier type situation is quite different. Results are used to accept or reject hypotheses, which in turn are used to drive conclusions. But without a a set paradigm, there's considerable flexibility in terms of what conclusions can be driven from the same results. That's where I've seen philosophy come in useful. Because what philosophy really excels at is working out the implications of a particular theory.
Which is why 'dualist' is considered a killer point. Because trying to fit in a reductionist model into a dualist system almost always results in a contradiction, or more precisely, a confusion of aims.
-- Updated March 10th, 2017, 7:03 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "mechanistic universe" and I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "philosophy" has rejected it.
Yeah, that was vague, sorry. The rise of quantum physics was the death knell of the idea of a mechanistic universe in which everything occured via straightforward physical interactions that worked intuitively as they do in the everyday world. This view had already collapsed within philosophy back with the Vienna Circle, and attempts to build a universal model of formal logic, and within physics with some of Einstein's models replacing newtonian physics. Once it was determined that a universe could not, in fact, operate on the basis of classically understood causal interactions, because the interactions would be unknoweable, rather than merely difficult to discern in practice, then it became clear that universe had to have a different basic structure than had been hoped for.
Steve3007 wrote:The counter-intuitive observations of 20th Century physics have resulted in attempts by many philosophers to fit them into what they would regard as a philosophically satisfying worldview. For a good example, see the short video in the topic about the Mach-Zehnder Interferometer which illustrates the odd properties of light:
Hm.. I'm already familiar with the science. Do you feel the videos contain the example I was asking for of philosophy following science?
I'm also note sure what you mean 'philsophically satisfying worldview'. The conditions philosophy set tend to be around whether ideas are coherant, contradictory, supported by the evidence, and so on. Is that what you're referring to?
Steve3007 wrote:The guy in the video with the ponytail and the odd voice (who studies the philosophy of physics because he regards actual theoretical physics as too practical) touches on it when he discusses his view of the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum physics. I think it is interesting that we (or at least some of us) feel the need to find an interpretation of the observations of physics that is philosophically satisfying to us. Some physicists, such as Richard Feynman, didn't seem to feel that need. They are happy to simply observe the results and find patterns in them.
The problem is that's not really enough. You can find patterns in data just by running a statistical process over it. Correlational analysis will produce hundreds if not thousands of patterns for even randomly generated data sets. What's important is patterns that have theoreticaly implications for a given model. Building and proposing models, and producing result sets to test them, is very much the business of science, just as testing those models against real results sets and establishing what can and can not be established with certainty, is done using statistical mathematics and philosophy. Stats tells you the significance of perceived patterns, and philosophy what assumptions and logical leaps your model is making. Obviously in practice most scientists do their own stats, and their own philosophy, only bringing in additional expertise if there's a real problem. Which is precisely why both of these things are taught as part of science courses.