Ken and John discuss the future of philosophy with three rising stars in American philosophy: Elizabeth Harman from New York University, Brian Weatherson from Cornell University, and Sean Kelly fr
Check out this article by philosopher David Papineau in the Times Literary Supplement:
The article challenges the criticism of philosophy that it doesn't seem to make progress, especially when compared to scientific enterprises. Philosophy hasn't produced conclusive answers to questions posed thousands of years ago. Science has accumulated an enormous wealth of knowledge about the world. A philosopher's advocate may defend philosophy's status by pointing to how the methods of philosophy are less straightforward or to the differences in what's being studied. Papineau actually rejects these defenses of philosophy. Instead, he argues that philosophy is just harder than science.
It's a curious argument. I'm not sure if I'm sold. I feel like the defenses Papineau rejects are actually very spot on. In fact, maybe I'd want to argue that the differences in method explains why philosophy may be "harder" than science. Let me know what you think in the comments!
Also, check out this blog by our own David Livingstone Smith on the relationship between truth and progress in philosophy: https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/truth-and-progress-philosophy
Log in or register to post comments
Modern science has made astounding progress in our understanding of ourselves and the universe.
Is philosophy the queen of the sciences, with the job of synthesizing, interpreting and evaluating the results of the particular sciences?
Human are conscious, billiard balls are not, and computers aren't either. But all three are just collections of molecules, aren't they? What is consciousness, and does it go beyond what science
Turns out that Galileo was right and Aristotle was wrong: in a vacuum, a feather and a bowling ball will fall from a tall building at exactly the same speed.