Izawwlgood wrote:If you're hinting that ethics, particularly, medical ethics or research ethics are a thing that philosophers get up to, then sure, I concur. I don't think that's really pertinent though to the action of conducting science. Yes, philosophers contributed to the decision of whether or not to drop the bomb. Yes, philosophers can weigh in on whether or not animal testing for medical research is acceptable.Zcorp wrote:While you might not care what philosophy thinks, philosophy cares about the result of the science you conduct. It also cares about how you conduct science and the value of the science you are conducting vs the harm it might cause while you are conducting it.
That doesn't make animal testing for medical research something that philosophers are doing though.
I agree, although a philosopher might be doing that, but then it would be far more reasonable to call them a medical researcher.
Yes, but as pointed out earlier, 'overlap' is not as good a description as 'predecessor'. I.e., Mokele's analogy.Zcorp wrote:Maybe that's a better place to start. Do you agree that science lies within the realm of reason?
Its not simply overlap. Science is a child/species/more concrete class to the idea of reason. The goal of science is largely to inform reason with new data to adjust how to make better judgement, beliefs or scientific theories.
I'm actually intrigued/concerned with philosophers calling themselves scientists when they do philosophy.Zcorp wrote:When you start using philosophy as a noun you are implying two things, intention and action. If your intention is to answer or study fundamental questions and take the action to do so you would be engaging in an act of philosophy. However, calling someone a 'philosopher' or attaching any action to a noun is something we generally reserve for when that action is a chronic behavior and intention of the individual.
If a philosopher calls themselves a scientist while being bad at science that is certainly something to be concerned about. To bring back my analogy from earlier.
"I can be good at free throws but bad at basketball, I can also be good at basketball but bad at free throws."
I can be good at science but bad a philosophy, I can also be good at philosophy but bad a science.
If I am a philosopher - be it a good or bad one - and am bad at science and call myself a scientist I would be pretty dishonest.
If I was a basketball player and am bad at free throws and call myself a 'free thrower' I would be pretty dishonest.