Ballantyne sees three situations in which a question would be interdisciplinary/”hybridized”:
the evidence required to answer a question reliably or responsibly comes from two or more fields;
Many of the key issues discussed here have that property. Various branches of science are highly relevant to issues like consciousness and free will , but not sufficient to solve them, because typically philosophical reasoning is needed to ensure that the right concept is being explained, or identify which concept is being explained.
When scientists claim to have solved some longstanding philosophical problem, they often haven’t understood it in the first place , or they have solved their personal “head cannon” version.
That’s a problem that’s much less recognised than its mirror image, the philosopher who can decide how the universe works “from the armchair”.
Many of the key issues discussed here have that property. Various branches of science are highly relevant to issues like consciousness and free will , but not sufficient to solve them, because typically philosophical reasoning is needed to ensure that the right concept is being explained, or identify which concept is being explained.
When scientists claim to have solved some longstanding philosophical problem, they often haven’t understood it in the first place , or they have solved their personal “head cannon” version.
That’s a problem that’s much less recognised than its mirror image, the philosopher who can decide how the universe works “from the armchair”.