Men of science before the philosophy of science...?
I am trying to find a way to put dense and abstruse philosophical writings, specially of some philosophical thinkers today, into simple English so that people can get the ideas such thinkers are trying to tell the world.
On the naive assumption that scientists can explain things better than philosophers, even explain philosophers and their writings better than philosophers themselves, I come to entertain the idea that maybe if we get really good scientists and science writers to explain philosophy and philosophers, then we might just see what they are talking about, most specially those who talk unlike Adler.
Francis Bacon, was he a compiler of methods employed by people of the past and of his times, men we would now today call scientists, or did he think out the epistemology of science from out of the blue?
During his days and before his birth in the past there had always been engineers and technicians, for example, men who thought of ways and means to raise giant structures like the pyramids, the highways of imperial Rome, aqueducts, and build war machines, construct seafaring vessels, they are what we would today call scientists because they were doing science as they figured out how to produce their small and big and colossal contrivances.
These were men who did not have to read philosophy of science to achieve their extraordinary feats of structure and machinery -- because there was no philosophy of science then...(?)
Suppose those dense and abstruse philosophers of today write their ideas in the methodology of a term paper in a science report as we do in high school and also in college.
That should enable them to produce their ideas clearly and briefly, and maybe they might decide to not bring them out and convince thinking people about their worth.
yrreg
