If you want to look at interesting advances in philosophy, read the stuff by the CMU causality gang (Spirtes/Scheines/Glymour, philosophy department, also Kelly). Of course you will probably say that is not really philosophy but theoretical statistics or something. Pearl’s stuff can be considered philosophy too (certainly his stuff on actual cause is cited a lot in phil papers).
Look, everything counts as phil:
Old science may also have counted as phil. in the days when they weren’t distinct. However WD’s exmaples were
of contemporary developements that seem to be considered not-phil by contemporary philosophers.
certainly his stuff on actual cause is cited a lot in phil papers
Science in general is quoted quite a lot. But there is a difference between phils. discussing phil. and phils. discussing non-phil as somethign that can be philosophised about. if only in tone and presentation.
Look, everything counts as phil: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy). Philosophy gets credit for launching science in the 19th century.
Philosophers were the first to invent the AI effect, apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect).
If you want to look at interesting advances in philosophy, read the stuff by the CMU causality gang (Spirtes/Scheines/Glymour, philosophy department, also Kelly). Of course you will probably say that is not really philosophy but theoretical statistics or something. Pearl’s stuff can be considered philosophy too (certainly his stuff on actual cause is cited a lot in phil papers).
Science in general is quoted quite a lot. But there is a difference between phils. discussing phil. and phils. discussing non-phil as somethign that can be philosophised about. if only in tone and presentation.
Your quoting is confusing.