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.
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.