(July 19, 2025 at 8:27 am)Alan V Wrote: 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.
I have never heard a theist make such an argument, and I don't know what that person said exactly. If some theists really are saying that scientists are accountable to philosophers, then that's an arrogant thing to say.
Quote:Is being pragmatic really considered a philosophy, or is it just common sense now?
The decision to opt for something pragmatic like methodological naturalism is rooted in philosophy, and it espouses some type of epistemology (which is philosophy).
Quote: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.
Philosophy has never meant something historical, though. Do you not think (for example) that philosophy of science is philosophy?
Quote: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.
Philosophers can also have that same advantage, you know. Obviously, you need to be familiar with the science and mathematics, but that is not something only scientists can do.
Do you think philosophical papers/debates on the nature of time (for example) have not ever referenced Einsteinian relativity? Or that no philosopher has examined the implications of various interpretations of quantum mechanics? Or that they have not examined mathematics ever in an attempt to get at the root of the concept of infinity? etc.
It's not that philosophers can't have access to, or aren't able to reason about, things that are strictly scientific or mathematical. It's that it's not their primary job to be doing the actual science or math. That's what scientists and mathematicians are for.
Quote: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.
Do you think restricting research to the most likely possibilities does not require any justification and is not based on any kind of philosophy?
And what does it mean for possibilities to be "most likely"? Sounds like some type of philosophy is required here also.
Quote: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.
When we're assessing religious claims in terms of evidence, we do so in line with criteria that are rooted in some type of philosophy.