When presented with evidence that applied philosophy of science currently occurs, it seems beside the point that some philosophers in the past (yes, even 'heavyweights') couldn't do the 'applied' part; ie couldn't speak to questions relevant to scientists. In addition, /1
“Applied philosophy of science” has always occurred in science - with or without philosophers. Scientists have always thought about what they did, on multiple levels. The evidence that they need external help, or that external help historically made a critical difference, is a bit stretched.
I would agree that 'applied philosophy of science' can be done by scientists. The point here is definitely not to denigrate scientists as 'thoughtless', but to argue that sometimes the specific tool-set in which philosophers are trained can be, and has been, relevant to scientific practice.
I'm not sure what 'evidence' you're referring to?
I assume that claims like “Philosophers/philosophy of science can offer concrete tools for academic research (in science)” is based on some concrete evidence and historical examples. If not, what is it based on? Conviction that it is self-evident?
Vedanta and Schrödinger
Even if he was "inspired" by it when working on wave mechanics, and not retroffited it in his later reminiscences (which is common), it was a set of poetic analogies rather than anything that could pass as a serious philosophical argument. That's not what Carl or philosophers of science had in mind.
Mach and Einstein ?
Could you provide some instances where any of Einstein's classic papers cited a philosopher or a work of philosophy? (I tried and failed). Mach was both a philosopher and physicist. Was his actual physics better for it? From "The Search" (1934) by C.P. Snow (of the "Two Cultures" fame).
Not conviction that it's self-evident. There have been, and continue to be, philosophers and scientists actively collaborating on projects. I want to make clear, though, that I don't think you'd want constant philosophical involvement in all parts/areas of scientific research. Also, ...
it is understandable that scientists can be incredulous about philosophical involvement. For one, some attempts at applied philosophy of science by philosophers are truly dire.
Philosophers/philosophers of science can point out logical contradictions and fallacies about how science or reality works, thereby greatly reducing the search space for viable scientific discoveries.
Give me an example where they have done it.
"The homunculus argument is an informal fallacy whereby a concept is explained in terms of the concept itself, recursively, without first defining or explaining the original concept. This fallacy arises most commonly in the theory of vision."
Here is an example in the wild where a man argues that LLMs are the path to AGI due to ignorance of philosophy of mind.
If you accept Kuhn's account of scientific revolutions, it was always nonsensical to expect LLM hallucinations to be inevitably fixed in later chatbot product versions, as if these were minor programming bugs to be ironed out when given a bit more time for engineering work.
This makes no sense at all... Plus, even Kuhn did not accept how most philosophers interpreted his account of scientific revolutions ;)
I think an emphasis on a putative need for 'objective criteria' is also off-the-mark. If philosophy can clarify some of the conceptual, logical and ethical issues at play in a particular scientific query, that can help decision-making. /end
“Clarify” is probably one of the most unclear concepts that philosophers use to describe what they do. It can mean anything and lacks broadly accepted criteria for what it means to successfully clarify something. I recommend bingweb.binghamton.edu/~dietrich/Pa... - quite relevant for your claims.
Re your link, you will probably not be surprised to hear that other philosophers take different views on the question of whether there is progress in philosophy, and if so what form it takes (spoiler alert: not the form that progress in science takes). But it seems quite easy to say that...
Exactly, they take different views, with no resolution. Even the most unsavoury ideas and history came with support by some philosopher or another. Hardly a recommendation for being the right ones to clarify issues, let alone help resolve them…
You very understandably come at this from the perspective of 'if philosophy can't find the one right answer, what use is philosophy'? But we're looking at different scales here. It's not a question of finding the 'right' answer to a big philosophical question; there are smaller tasks to which ...
No, that is not my perspective. I am just pointing out that that perspective is implicit in some of the claims thrown around here, and when I do, there is always a retreat to “clarification” and pluri-perspectivism - which offer very little useful guidance to working scientists.
Ultimately, the role of Philosophy of Science amounts to what Locke stated "it is ambition enough to be employed as an under-labourer in clearing the ground a little, and removing some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge." That said, there's an awful lot of rubbish to clear.
Whatever rubbish there is to clear in science, I am still waiting for a convincing example of any such rubbish having been cleared by philosophy of science in the past. Scientists always had to clean their own rubbish, and I suspect that they will do it in the future, too. Nobody else can help much.
Okay then. Look up “species concepts“ and tell me how that hot mess has been cleaned up. Be thorough.
Only philosophers of biology and some zoologists fuss about the concept of species. Most biologists who have any use for the concept know that there is no definition that can be made to work for all branches of the tree of life. And no working biologists have need for a unifying definition.
A colleague of mine is working on defining "control" in AVH. She argues that different psychologists use the concept of "control" in very different ways, which explains their seemingly contradictory findings. Maybe not phil of sci, but it seems to be a good example of philosophy guiding science.
Yes, the same word in different context can have different operating definition (like "species" - different in vertebrate zoology and in microbiology; or "gene" - different in population genetics and genomics). We know that without philosophy guiding us.
/ in which they can be well-trained that provide value. Eg finding holes in the logic of an argument (spotting hidden premises, equivocations etc). Or exploring the different possible meanings of a scientific concept (I think collaborative work in the foundations of physics is an example of this).
Again, not arguing that scientists *can't* do this. But when you are specifically trained in doing something, and you do it day in and day out, you do develop some expertise.
OK, give me examples where a philosopher discovered a hole in a scientific argument that scientists missed. You can be trained in logic to perfection, yet without the domain knowledge you are unlikely to be able to spot any errors. Errors reducible to faulty syllogisms are rare in science.
Definitely, domain-specific knowledge is crucial; that's why I think it's in collaboration *with* scientists that philosophers can be most of use. Re your question, I think you overestimate humans in general! All of us are susceptible to believing/constructing flawed arguments ...
... (which are not the same as 'faulty syllogisms'), or purporting to 'prove' something that we actually haven't. Again, detecting this is not a skill unique to philosophers; I think here of how poor the connection between scientific hypothesis and statistical evidence can be in ...
Dennett was a philosopher who studied and worked alongside scientists. He avoided ivory tower academic philosophical jargon - to his credit. He had (enough) domain knowledge to make an impact on science. Part of the problem I see with the present conversation is that you guys are talking about...
philosophers and scientists as if they were people in two different departments wearing badges that say "philosopher" or "scientist". Academia loves its silos. The real breakthroughs usually happen in the margins.
...a philosopher has successfully clarified something if someone personally finds the attempted clarification clarifying! I would deny that no philosopher has ever clarified anything; and I also wouldn't claim that every philosophers' attempt is successful.