(August 26, 2025 at 8:23 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: As to the rest of what you said, I think I made my stance clear on this pages ago and not really sure what else I can say on the matter. For me, philosophy is the parent of all sciences and continues to be a guiding parent. Parents don't just rear their children until these children become adults, and then they are let go. Parents may continue to lend support to their children even when these children are working and living independent lives and financially supporting their parents. It's sort of like this with philosophy and science. There is constant interaction between philosophy and science, so that philosophy has it uses for science and science has its uses for philosophy. There is no versus going on here.While I can go along with a lot of your nuances about the alleged disconnect between science and philosophy, I also see a lot of examples of philosophy failing to connect to science. Maybe it is disdain, maybe it is lazyness, I really don't know.
As a example I give you trained philosopher/theologian Alex O'Connor in this YT video presenting outdated Aristotelian logic (disproven by Newton ages ago) as relevant argumentation. How about those appraised philosophical investigative skills in checking up on some secondary school physics?
Philosophy without science is not grounded in reality. Science without philosophy lacks embedding in the total landscape of human understanding. As of late, say the last four centuries, science clearly sets the pace, so in what way is one the parent of the other? Seems a rather unnecessary hierarchy to me.
