Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

I don’t understand what you mean by “failing to show any of their work”? The data has been linked to (though you may have to pay to access some of it, like they did), the methodology is described in Sections 4 and 5, the code they used for analysis is linked to, results are reported and analysed, and there are tables and diagrams and an appendix.

I mean, sure, they don’t show the statistical tests in full detail, but that’s standard, and there may be some word limit imposed anyway.

Again, any researcher who is suspicious can test their findings using the same data and details they have provided.

I don't think the research paper tells us anything important. 

It's an attempt to claim that the successes of one field can be identified and quantified according to the values of a different field. 

The things which can be (allegedly) identified and quantified through this study are not the things that are important about philosophy. Philosophy is mostly about wisdom. It's about how a person lives. A wise man may or may not do well on standardized tests. He may be too interested in his passionate endeavors even to take a standardized test. 

So I think it's a category error. 

If practice discussing philosophical issues with smart, temperate, and generous people does increase a person's score on some standardized test, that is a fortunate side-effect, but unrelated to the goal of philosophy. 

Also, I think it would be interesting to compile a list of philosophy books which are still entirely relevant and worth reading, and have had their value in no way reduced by modern science. If we start making a list I think we'll find a lot of them. 

I'd say the Nicomachean Ethics is certainly one of them. Though the ethics it describes are certainly different from our own, one of the great benefits of the book is to get a clear idea of what an alternative ethics would look like. If we compare to what we have now, we see how Aristotle's version has certain benefits. It shows how our own ethical system is certainly contingent on our time and place, and not something that will be self-evident elsewhere.

Likewise After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre. Fascinating and challenging philosophy book which is, again, completely unaffected by changes in science. Many people will disagree with its conclusions, but will nonetheless benefit from reading it. 

Language Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer. This is the clearest statement in English of the logical positivist view which many of our fellow atheists believe without knowing that they believe it. How Ayer spells it out, and how people since then have come to (mostly) reject his claims are valuable to know. 

The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music by Nietzsche. This is a post-Darwin book, written with the theory of evolution well in mind. It can certainly be criticized in terms of the accuracy of Neitzsche's reading of Greek culture, but advances in modern science have not lessened its message in any way.

The idea that somehow philosophy is not necessary any more because science has taken its place is belied by the existence of these, and many other books. They do different things than science, and they do things that science can't do and can't criticize. 

No doubt you can think of lots of others.