Philosophy Versus Science

[Alan V]

There is no versus, and no one is holding scientists accountable to philosophers. But when you want to debate the philosophy of science, you have to do philosophy. You cannot justify science without adhering to some philosophical worldview (whatever it may be).

Well, one specific theist arguing over at Atheist Discussion thought that scientists were accountable to philosophers, and I have heard similar arguments from others. However, I agree with you that they aren't.

Is being pragmatic really considered a philosophy, or is it just common sense now? My argument is that what was once a matter for philosophy is no longer, both in science and in the philosophical origins of science, because both have developed so much since their origins. Kind of like how I am a different person than my grandfather.

And if "scientists can do their own philosophy", then this doesn't sound like philosophy is in opposition to science. And for the record, I don't accept that scientists are doing their own philosophy in the sense that they are doing a kind of philosophy that philosophers don't get to do. Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. There is no such thing as "scientist-only philosophy".

Scientists now have the advantage of doing their own philosophy which is based on the insider knowledge of the tools and the mathematics which only they can follow in detail.

Maybe, but this wouldn't discredit philosophy anyway. Because even methodological naturalism is a philosophical position. And still warrants justification in certain debates to do with evidence and epistemology.

Methodological naturalism was, to my mind, adopted as a pragmatic means of tackling scientific problems by restricting research to the most likely possibilities. It has been very successful by doing so. As HappySkeptic mentioned above, that doesn't prevent scientists from assessing religious claims in terms of evidence, or prevent religious people from trying to insert their beliefs into scientific discoveries.