- #1
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
- 988
- 4
I know that science has only really parted from Philosophy recently in the big picture, and so yes, of course, in the past there wasn't even a distinction between Science and Philosophy (Natural Philosophy)
BUT, the separation has been quick, and the distinction is now quite clear. The difference between a B. Arts and a B. Science is profound, and you don't want to dare imply to a science degree student that their degree is no different from an arts one!
As such, in our society, nearly all of our modern scientists are just plain simple scientists, trained to perform repetitive tasks, trained to understand the basic premises of their field, trained to hypothesis, test, report...not very much to it.
I am proposing that these scientists, although integral to the process, will be completely overshadowed by the 'greats' that are to come, all of which will actually be 'Philosophers' (in the true, internal sense, not just in the 'I have a degree in philosophy' sense). The people who know how to critically engage with problems, people who know how to think outside the box, people who question common beliefs etc...
This sort of stuff isn't as common as you would like to think.
Anyway, just some thoughts: Modern scientific greats that instantly come to mind are Einstein, Watson and Crick...and some others to follow (because I am not sure if they belong)
Einstein is a philosopher: His whole theory revolved around perception, time, reality...etc. Read his work, and it is a philosophical piece which just happens ot have brilliant maths backing it up. Einstein was a bridge between Philosophy and Science, using the common denominator : Maths.
Einsteins natural tendency to be a philosopher is apparent in his work.
Crick was a philosopher. As well as being famed for discovering the structure and mechanism of replication of DNA, but he also has several papers which present a theory for the Mind. I thought it amusing that if he was right, he would be the most remarkable man of all time: Responsible for answering the two most challenging questions of all time: What is life? What is the mind? hehehe. Crick is a philosopher, and I think this is part of why he is now a 'great' of science.
Other examples I am thinking of are more so Popular Scientisits, not so much 'greats'... But I am thinking Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, Sagan... they are all philosophers as well as scientists. I think Dawkins' work is brilliant, and it is definitely a result of his philosophical approach, but it isn't the sort of work to make him a 'great' yet...
BUT, the separation has been quick, and the distinction is now quite clear. The difference between a B. Arts and a B. Science is profound, and you don't want to dare imply to a science degree student that their degree is no different from an arts one!
As such, in our society, nearly all of our modern scientists are just plain simple scientists, trained to perform repetitive tasks, trained to understand the basic premises of their field, trained to hypothesis, test, report...not very much to it.
I am proposing that these scientists, although integral to the process, will be completely overshadowed by the 'greats' that are to come, all of which will actually be 'Philosophers' (in the true, internal sense, not just in the 'I have a degree in philosophy' sense). The people who know how to critically engage with problems, people who know how to think outside the box, people who question common beliefs etc...
This sort of stuff isn't as common as you would like to think.
Anyway, just some thoughts: Modern scientific greats that instantly come to mind are Einstein, Watson and Crick...and some others to follow (because I am not sure if they belong)
Einstein is a philosopher: His whole theory revolved around perception, time, reality...etc. Read his work, and it is a philosophical piece which just happens ot have brilliant maths backing it up. Einstein was a bridge between Philosophy and Science, using the common denominator : Maths.
Einsteins natural tendency to be a philosopher is apparent in his work.
Crick was a philosopher. As well as being famed for discovering the structure and mechanism of replication of DNA, but he also has several papers which present a theory for the Mind. I thought it amusing that if he was right, he would be the most remarkable man of all time: Responsible for answering the two most challenging questions of all time: What is life? What is the mind? hehehe. Crick is a philosopher, and I think this is part of why he is now a 'great' of science.
Other examples I am thinking of are more so Popular Scientisits, not so much 'greats'... But I am thinking Dawkins, Dennett, Gould, Sagan... they are all philosophers as well as scientists. I think Dawkins' work is brilliant, and it is definitely a result of his philosophical approach, but it isn't the sort of work to make him a 'great' yet...