F. Y. Edgeworth, Bertrand Russell, and Kurt Goedel come to mind. They were mathematicians, which is pretty similar. Daniel Dennett is well-acquainted with AI. Paul and Patricia Churchland are familiar with neuroscience; but I don’t know how good their philosophy is. R. Penrose is good at math and physics, but not at philosophy. Wittgenstein produced some of his best insights from studying linguistics. J. Fodor is very well-educated in linguistics, and has a mixed record in philosophy (well, stuff that might be more cognitive science) of good and bad ideas. J. Searle is also well-educated in linguistics, and bad (possibly deliberately) at philosophy. Valentino Braitenberg, a roboticist, seems philosophically competent, or at least able to talk about what is likely and important in the long term.
F. Y. Edgeworth, Bertrand Russell, and Kurt Goedel come to mind. They were mathematicians, which is pretty similar. Daniel Dennett is well-acquainted with AI. Paul and Patricia Churchland are familiar with neuroscience; but I don’t know how good their philosophy is. R. Penrose is good at math and physics, but not at philosophy. Wittgenstein produced some of his best insights from studying linguistics. J. Fodor is very well-educated in linguistics, and has a mixed record in philosophy (well, stuff that might be more cognitive science) of good and bad ideas. J. Searle is also well-educated in linguistics, and bad (possibly deliberately) at philosophy. Valentino Braitenberg, a roboticist, seems philosophically competent, or at least able to talk about what is likely and important in the long term.