(September 20, 2014 at 1:40 pm)Dolorian Wrote: "Philosophy is the handmaiden of Science; Philosophy helps elucidate Science and prevents it from falling into pseudoscience"
Would you agree with that assessment? Why, why not?
Given the fact that every pseudoscientist thinks they are doing real science, it seems to me its a difference in philosophy which lead them astray. Thus, I believe philsophy can derail science into silliness just as easily as it can place it on a sound path. That said, however, it is difficult to deny the philosophical underpinnings to sound versions of the scientific process too. Many philosophers say the mere act of constructing a hypothesis is a philosophical act. The role of logic, too, is undeniably omni-present in science and undeniably the purview of philosophy as well.
I liked Dan Dennett's remark about the role of philosophy and philosophers as having the job of developing and "asking the good questions" that leads scientists to do more and interesting science.
In that light, philosophy doesn't prevent science from doing anything at all (including falling into pseudoscience) but, philosophy still remains one of several horses that pulls the science cart along its path, whatever that path may be. It might be a lead horse in some horse-trains, or it might be one of the strong-backs in the back of the train...it all depends upon the nature of the science being done.
Perhaps the physical sciences, like chemistry or physics or biology, depend far less upon philosophy leading their efforts (while still depending upon a strong-back or two which might represent the tried-and-true methods and technology developed for those fields), while many of the the softer, social sciences often are lead more by philsophical concerns out front.
