Philosophy Versus Science

[The Grand Nudger]

To repeat (or summarize), my argument is that science, as a spin-off from philosophy, includes enough elements from philosophy as to no longer be accountable to philosophers.  Science has effectively become something else, largely because of its requirements for testing experiments and supporting evidence.

This is also true of philosophy at an academic level.  Consider normative ethics.  The dominant theory is a realist reductive and scientific materialism.  They employ models, field observations, they make predictions and test their assumptions.  They draw from biology and from physics to support their arguments.  They construct elaborate experiments that the participants often do not understand the nature of - and study large scale natural experiments for more insight.  It's pretty hard to find any field in academia that doesn't want the credibility the methods of so called hard sciences can produce. Not so long ago archeology made a hard turn into scientific methodology, for the same reason, as well.

They write popularizing books about all this too, ofc, but the well has been thoroughly poisoned - much the same way that science still battles superstition. I personally think it's been productive.