Is philosophy dead?

[bennyboy]

Even more specifically, it was the contention that philosophers have not kept abreast of scientific discovery 

That's like saying that dogs haven't kept abreast of beagles.

When we want to answer a question...we don't run out and hire philosophers. Not even when the question is one of pure reasons traditional strongholds. We're doing science there as well.

Again, that's like saying that when you want a beagle, you don't run out and get a dog.


See, the thing is that scientific progress IS philosophical progress-- it's a useful branch of philosophy which leads to very good results in certain categories of inquiry. However, trying to replace philosophy with science is like trying to replace dogs with beagles because you are sure they are the best and most relevant dog. All you'll achieve is the loss of utility that the other dogs provided.

You STILL don't have any good explanation of cosmogony, or of psychogony, or of what is/isn't moral. At best, you can parrot the words "not yet" over and over, or try to redefine terms so you can start collecting data about something that kinda looks like the things people care about.


Don't believe me? Write the perfect science-driven musical composition, and I'm sure you'll be super-rich and popular. Right?