[Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

[The Grand Nudger]

Government is the practical application of philosophy, there's always that.

[Angrboda]

What substantial idea has philosophy (as done by a philosopher, not a specialist in the area of study)  given in the last 200 years that has actually played a role in physics? or chemistry? or biology? or geology?

Falsification, which came out of Popper's rationalism, as well as the criticisms of the logical positivists. Without those, science would still be stumbling.

[purplepurpose]

I think, Its for exceptional and intelligent people who have time and money to spend. Not for poor working class people.

[John 6IX Breezy]

What substantial idea has philosophy (as done by a philosopher, not a specialist in the area of study)  given in the last 200 years that has actually played a role in physics? or chemistry? or biology? or geology?

Hmm when it comes to psychology and neuroscience there's plenty of collaboration with philosophers of mind. Popular figures which you may have heard of include John Searle, David Chalmers, Andy Clark, and so forth. For example, the psychologist Steven Pinker often goes back and forth with ideas from the philosopher Jerry Fodor on topics of thought and language.

Same thing within biology and the other fields. Questions such as what is a gene, are species real, and what are the units of selection, fall within the philosophy of biology. You can think of these philosophers as metabiologists, bringing clarity and critiques to biological ideas, etc. In fact, it's possible that you've encountered ideas from the philosophy of biology before, and just assumed it was all pure biology.

Here's a short Youtube lecture on The Species Problem.

[GrandizerII]

polymath seems to be under the impression that philosophy is in competition with science, but philosophers aren't (generally speaking) trying to use philosophy to do the same sorts of stuff that science can effectively do. And of course metaphysics has its uses, as it can guide and further expand upon what the sciences say, thus hopefully leading us in the right directions when seeking further answers via science.

[John 6IX Breezy]

And, once again, philosophy is best when it is investigating assumptions and asking questions and worst when it thinks it has answers.

This might be controversial. But I don't think science produces more meaningful answers than philosophy. It can produce models and theories, and it can falsify them with new observations. But it's odd to say these are answers to things.

Now, science can answer certain questions when it makes observations (e.g. where in the brain does fear reside?). But there's something unsatisfactory about equating science with mere observation. Astrology isn't doing science when it observes the stars. And I'm not doing science when I discover things in my daily life.

[Belacqua]

polymath seems to be under the impression that philosophy is in competition with science, but philosophers aren't (generally speaking) trying to use philosophy to do the same sorts of stuff that science can effectively do. And of course metaphysics has its uses, as it can guide and further expand upon what the sciences say, thus hopefully leading us in the right directions when seeking further answers via science.

The story is that Socrates did research on the natural world when he was young -- more like science. But as he got older he decided that knowing all about the natural world meant nothing if we are bad people. Ethics, and the wisdom of how to live well, is something worth spending one's time on.

But the majority of people in every generation would vote to condemn Socrates.

---

I think, Its for exceptional and intelligent people who have time and money to spend. Not for poor working class people.

This is really interesting. I agree that generally there is a class difference in who does philosophy, or who can do it.

For a very long time, the "Liberal" in "Liberal Arts" meant "at liberty" -- that is, not having to work for a living. Aristotle is clear on this: a life of the mind is only available for (what we would call) the idle rich.

There was a time, though, when this barrier was somewhat less. The intellectual history of England from the beginning of the modern economy until the advent of mass media includes many examples of non-elite people with the ability to participate. 

This is mostly skilled workers. Laborers were always probably too tired to study. But people like tailors, hat-makers, land surveyors, and others who needed a decent amount of smarts to succeed were often very brainy people.

There were only two universities, and these were for either the children of the very rich, or for people training to be Christian ministers. Nobody else could go. But they developed lots of alternative methods for intellectual activity. For example, lecture series were wildly popular. An intellectual who was a good speaker could draw large crowds from among the middle class. Books were fairly cheap. Many bookstores were also small publishers, and became gathering places for people to discuss the ideas in the publications. 

The story of Joseph Johnson's bookstore is wonderful to read. He was a progressive publisher whose shop attracted Thomas Paine, William Blake, Mary Wollstonecraft, William Godwin, and several other important thinkers. Blake, for one, never had a formal education at all. But we know he read just about all the philosophy and theology that was in print, annotated them, understood them, and argued about them. It was not strange for a guy who spent daylight hours making money from engraving (before magazines had photographs) to spend the rest of his time on philosophy. Later, of course, George III put Johnson in jail for thinking a little too much about how government might be better.

I think this has ended largely because of mass media. TV and movies and popular novels are like fast food, very attractive and cheap, and deadly to those who consume them. Remember that Dickens' novels were serialized and were wildly popular among all social classes, but today these are considered difficult classics that only eggheads will read. 

Obviously if someone works two jobs and doesn't get enough sleep (which is what Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos want for most of us) he's not going to be reading books. But it doesn't have to be this way.

[polymath257]

What substantial idea has philosophy (as done by a philosopher, not a specialist in the area of study)  given in the last 200 years that has actually played a role in physics? or chemistry? or biology? or geology?

Falsification, which came out of Popper's rationalism, as well as the criticisms of the logical positivists.  Without those, science would still be stumbling.

I doubt it. Science was doing quite well long before Popper. And Popper's ideas didn't really lead to a revolution in science. If anything, it described what most scientists were already doing.

---

polymath seems to be under the impression that philosophy is in competition with science, but philosophers aren't (generally speaking) trying to use philosophy to do the same sorts of stuff that science can effectively do. And of course metaphysics has its uses, as it can guide and further expand upon what the sciences say, thus hopefully leading us in the right directions when seeking further answers via science.

Can you give a recent (within the last couple of centuries) where that has happened? When has metaphysics pointed a direction to solving a problem in the sciences? Even the atomic theory, which perhaps has the best claim to this sort of influence, is very different in its ancient manifestation and its modern one.



No, I do not think there is a conflict between philosophy and science. From the perspective of most scientists, philosophy has nothing at all to say. it is simply irrelevant to the conduct of science.

Again, don't get me wrong. I find philosophy fun to do and to discuss. I just don't expect it to actually contribute anything useful in the acquisition of knowledge. It does have great use in those subjects which are NOT knowledge based (such as ethics, aesthetics, etc). it can also be useful at the very beginning of a subject to look at what philosophers have explored. But that very quickly gets exhausted and the real science needs to step in and take over.

[Angrboda]

Falsification, which came out of Popper's rationalism, as well as the criticisms of the logical positivists.  Without those, science would still be stumbling.

I doubt it. Science was doing quite well long before Popper. And Popper's ideas didn't really lead to a revolution in science. If anything, it described what most scientists were already doing.

Uh huh. So when you're wrong, you just make shit up. Got it.

[vulcanlogician]

Polymath has a point in that there is a descriptive element to Popper's work. Still, the demarcation problem is useful. It helps us differentiate pseudo science from science.

Also, logical positivists reject all metaphysics. Unless you're in the camp that says "rejecting metaphysics is doing metaphysics"... which I'm not.