Where’s the evidence they do harm? Do we have something that shows that these attempts overall tend to stop further thought rather than start it? Personally I’d have thought that others coming across philosopher’s conclusions are often sparked to either disagree or to attempt to prove it, and both of these can help knowledge grow. Alternatively, philosophers can suggest ways of thinking about things which can then be used productively.
Where’s the evidence they do harm? Do we have something that shows that these attempts overall tend to stop further thought rather than start it?
I’m going to follow my own advice to philosophers and refrain from attempting to definitively answer your excellent questions. Instead I will limit myself to adding to your list of possible answers. I will simply mention the standard hagiographies surrounding Galileo and Copernicus and the negative roles assigned to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers and geometers in those stories.
But even though I sidestepped your questions, it seems appropriate in context for me to add some questions of my own. Do you know of any cases in which someone came across a philosopher’s conclusion, was sparked to disagree, and as a result generated something useful? Do you know of any cases in which philosophers suggested ways of thinking about things which then got used productively?
Even in cases where philosophers generated fruitful ideas, it seems to me that those ideas were usually inspired by work by people outside philosophy. Popper by Mach, for example. Or Martin-Lof by Curry and Gentzen. Cognitive philosophers by folks like Turing, Hebb, and Minsky.
Do you know of any cases in which philosophers suggested ways of thinking about things which then got used productively?
Sure. Roger Bacon. Sir Francis Bacon.
Both of whom, I note, greatly respected Aristotle while deriding the “Aristotelian” philosophers of their days, which suggests the problem in the Galileo and Copernicus cases was less defects of Aristotle and more defects of Scholasticism (during Roger’s day) and Second Scholasticism (during Francis’s day).
Good point about Aristotle: that was an area where a particular view was definitely seen as authoritative and that was a problem. Not sure if whether a lack of philsophy would have prevented another definitive solution being present, mind: the problem there was largely about a backwards-looking approach to truth, that saw the past as a Golden Age.
I don’t have answers to these myself: I don’t pretend to any more certainty than you. It partially depends on what you consider philosophy. I think Malthus is a good example of what I’d consider a (wrong) philosophical idea which assisted a great scientific advance. I thought that late nineteenth/early twentieth century physicists were often influenced by people like Kant, but I may be wrong, it’s been awhile since I’ve read anything in these areas.
Come to that, I sometimes think that people are lumped into ‘science’ by their success or their association with more solid empirical science. To take your example of Copernicus, I don’t think he really did much in the way of scientific experimentation etc: the main appeal of his theory was its mathematical/aesthetic elegance. It was Galileo who got into testing things.
Where’s the evidence they do harm? Do we have something that shows that these attempts overall tend to stop further thought rather than start it? Personally I’d have thought that others coming across philosopher’s conclusions are often sparked to either disagree or to attempt to prove it, and both of these can help knowledge grow. Alternatively, philosophers can suggest ways of thinking about things which can then be used productively.
I’m going to follow my own advice to philosophers and refrain from attempting to definitively answer your excellent questions. Instead I will limit myself to adding to your list of possible answers. I will simply mention the standard hagiographies surrounding Galileo and Copernicus and the negative roles assigned to Aristotle and other Greek philosophers and geometers in those stories.
But even though I sidestepped your questions, it seems appropriate in context for me to add some questions of my own. Do you know of any cases in which someone came across a philosopher’s conclusion, was sparked to disagree, and as a result generated something useful? Do you know of any cases in which philosophers suggested ways of thinking about things which then got used productively?
Even in cases where philosophers generated fruitful ideas, it seems to me that those ideas were usually inspired by work by people outside philosophy. Popper by Mach, for example. Or Martin-Lof by Curry and Gentzen. Cognitive philosophers by folks like Turing, Hebb, and Minsky.
Sure. Roger Bacon. Sir Francis Bacon.
Both of whom, I note, greatly respected Aristotle while deriding the “Aristotelian” philosophers of their days, which suggests the problem in the Galileo and Copernicus cases was less defects of Aristotle and more defects of Scholasticism (during Roger’s day) and Second Scholasticism (during Francis’s day).
Good point about Aristotle: that was an area where a particular view was definitely seen as authoritative and that was a problem. Not sure if whether a lack of philsophy would have prevented another definitive solution being present, mind: the problem there was largely about a backwards-looking approach to truth, that saw the past as a Golden Age.
I don’t have answers to these myself: I don’t pretend to any more certainty than you. It partially depends on what you consider philosophy. I think Malthus is a good example of what I’d consider a (wrong) philosophical idea which assisted a great scientific advance. I thought that late nineteenth/early twentieth century physicists were often influenced by people like Kant, but I may be wrong, it’s been awhile since I’ve read anything in these areas.
Come to that, I sometimes think that people are lumped into ‘science’ by their success or their association with more solid empirical science. To take your example of Copernicus, I don’t think he really did much in the way of scientific experimentation etc: the main appeal of his theory was its mathematical/aesthetic elegance. It was Galileo who got into testing things.