Philosophy Versus Science

[GrandizerII]

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.

Some theists argue that way because they are trying to ignore the whole question of evidence.  If they can draw atheists into purely philosophical discussions, they are on much more equal footing.  That strategy isn't an accident.

In all my debates with theists, I have not seen one theist make that statement. I suspect that in your paraphrasing, you may have unintentionally misrepresented what they are saying.

And for the record, many theists think we are the ones trying to ignore the whole question of evidence. When they ask us what counts as evidence, we answer, and then they challenge our answers, and we fumble. And part of the reason why is because we don't take philosophy as seriously as theists do. I have seen this time and time again, and it can be quite frustrating to see.

Of course, I am speaking generally, and in the context of online debates and forums like this one.

Also, theism doesn't need to go against science, at least insofar as it hasn't yet disproven/falsified the existence of God.

Without addressing you point by point, I would like to say, in general, that there is no doubt that certain schools of philosophy are embedded in the genetics of science.  However, those are the varieties of philosophy which have proven productive in terms of testable results.  There are right answers, as it turns out.  So scientists have no need to go back.

They don't need to go back, but it's always good to remember how useful philosophy has been, and continues to be, to the development of the various sciences.

Socrates is famous for saying something like "I know that I know nothing."  The problem is that certain philosophers still seem to think that some sort of absolute knowledge is possible.  Science has shown that we humans can know a lot of different things we once only dreamed of understanding.  But science changed the definition of knowledge in the process of learning, away from certain philosophical hopes of what was possible.

Except that all theories of knowledge came about through philosophy, not science.

Looking at results, I think we have to credit the pragmatists.  Unless there is some crisis in the sciences, other than aggressive ignorance, there is no reason to question or abandon what has worked in the past.  We may not ever know everything we might like, but we will be protected from jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

I'm all for methodological naturalism, but we shouldn't be blind to the fact that we need to resort to philosophy when pushed in the context of a debate to defend it.

After all, even excluding theists, not everyone agrees that pragmatism leads to truths or even success for that matter. Because, and to be annoyingly philosophical again, what is "success" exactly?