I don’t have a problem with philosophers doing philosophy of science when they bother to do it right. I’ve had a number of conversations with philosophers who utterly mangle the science. Usually, this has to do with quantum mechanics, but sometimes it has to do with relativity. Sometimes it has to do with combining the two.
Some names come to mind: Ernest Nagel, Ian Hacking, Peter Galison, Alex Rosenberg, Samir Okasha, Tim Maudlin, David Albert, David Wallace, Massimo Pigliucci.
Actually, I haven’t really encountered famous but shoddy philosophers of science. The reputed people seem to understand the problems they’re thinking about very deeply, have deep domain knowledge and also write very clearly.
I have to admit I wasn’t very impressed by A Very Short Introduction. The author used “façon-de-parler” when they could have used “figure of speech.” They didn’t mention or use probabilistic reasoning at any point, except to point out how mysterious (wiggles fingers) probabilities are. And they closed a section on the debate between Newton and Leibniz over whether absolute motion exists with the phrase “the controversy rages on.”
I don’t have a problem with philosophers doing philosophy of science when they bother to do it right. I’ve had a number of conversations with philosophers who utterly mangle the science. Usually, this has to do with quantum mechanics, but sometimes it has to do with relativity. Sometimes it has to do with combining the two.
Which philosophers do “philosophy of science” right?
Some names come to mind: Ernest Nagel, Ian Hacking, Peter Galison, Alex Rosenberg, Samir Okasha, Tim Maudlin, David Albert, David Wallace, Massimo Pigliucci.
Actually, I haven’t really encountered famous but shoddy philosophers of science. The reputed people seem to understand the problems they’re thinking about very deeply, have deep domain knowledge and also write very clearly.
As a side note, I highly recommend Samir Okasha’s A Very Short Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. For philosophy of physics, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Physics has a great selection of topics.
I have a chapter in that handbook! Won’t say which one, though.
I have to admit I wasn’t very impressed by A Very Short Introduction. The author used “façon-de-parler” when they could have used “figure of speech.” They didn’t mention or use probabilistic reasoning at any point, except to point out how mysterious (wiggles fingers) probabilities are. And they closed a section on the debate between Newton and Leibniz over whether absolute motion exists with the phrase “the controversy rages on.”
Thanks, will check out the last link.
Wayne Myrvold is a good example. Others: Huw Price, John Earman, Philip Kitcher, Christopher Hitchcock, David Wallace, David Albert, Clark Glymour.
Tim Maudlin, R.J. Deltete, Robin Collins , John Earman