If it is a good idea to hold off on proposing solutions, then why isn’t it okay to have a division of labour between those that merely discuss a problem as thoroughly as possible (in this case, some philosophers) and those that settle on a final solution (in this case, some scientists and engineers)?
Note: I believe that philosophy has solved some problems and that these solutions are usually the fundamental principles of an immature science (at which point they stop considering such problems as being within the domain of philosophy).
The question is not about philosophy but institutionalized philosophy.
a) Would those immature sciences not have been born if not for institutionalized philosophy?
b) Do you expect new sciences to be born within the philosophy departments we have today?
Or do you expect rather that a new science is more likely to arise as a result of Big Questions being asked in the mundane disciplines of our empirical sciences?
If it is a good idea to hold off on proposing solutions, then why isn’t it okay to have a division of labour between those that merely discuss a problem as thoroughly as possible (in this case, some philosophers) and those that settle on a final solution (in this case, some scientists and engineers)?
Note: I believe that philosophy has solved some problems and that these solutions are usually the fundamental principles of an immature science (at which point they stop considering such problems as being within the domain of philosophy).
.
The question is not about philosophy but institutionalized philosophy.
a) Would those immature sciences not have been born if not for institutionalized philosophy? b) Do you expect new sciences to be born within the philosophy departments we have today?
Or do you expect rather that a new science is more likely to arise as a result of Big Questions being asked in the mundane disciplines of our empirical sciences?