Problems arise when you think you know everything and you actually don't. We see this on both sides and it's only really not a problem when you are knowledgeable and active in both philosophy and the relevant sciences. — darthbarracuda

Really? I thought scientists were more bigoted than philosophers. A lot of science types I have met seem to think that we can know everything there is to ever know and that we will find a theory of everything even despite me pointing out that they are a finite brain with limited computational resources.

Philosophy divorced from science is pure, unaided speculation without natural constraints (it can come across more like intellectual art than actual inquiry; everyone tries to make the most aesthetically pleasing or excitingly surprising theory, even if it's outlandish), and science divorced from philosophy makes it crude and dogmatic. — darthbarracuda

That reminds me of "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." which should actually read "Science without Philosophy is lame, Philosophy without science is blind."

If science is about facts then who is doing the interpretation? Scientists? Aren't philosophers the masters of interpretation?

This reminds me of the sectarianism in the churches hundreds of years ago that prohibited the manufacturing of literature etc. Bastards, just like scientists. Narrow minded pricks who think their interpretations are WIN.

This reminds me of the sectarianism in the churches hundreds of years ago that prohibited the manufacturing of literature etc. Bastards, just like scientists. Narrow minded pricks who think their interpretations are WIN. — intrapersona

I mean, I wouldn't say every single scientist is a narrow minded prick. In fact I would say that a vast majority of them are normal human beings who decided to be scientists out of curiosity, or perhaps some idealistic goal, only to be disappointed with the academic wall and the bureaucratic bullshit in the way of scientific advancement.

If science is about facts then who is doing the interpretation? Scientists? Aren't philosophers the masters of interpretation? — intrapersona

The truth is that there really isn't a turf war between science and philosophy, contrary to what those pop-science pricks make it seem. Actually, it's a fairly recent phenomenon for scientists to be dissociated with philosophy. Not to name drop but Einstein was heavily influenced by Kantian metaphysics, and thought highly of Schopenhauer as well. So were his contemporaries.

It's always philosophy + science that produces real results. Not everyone can be a genius and do both, so you need specialization. But with that you also need communication, something that seems to be lacking in today's academic world. Instead of isolating themselves, philosophers should be branching out to other fields, and instead of claiming superiority over everything, scientists (especially those annoying pop-science physicist pricks) should be less confident and more reflective.

Really? I thought scientists were more bigoted than philosophers. A lot of science types I have met seem to think that we can know everything there is to ever know and that we will find a theory of everything even despite me pointing out that they are a finite brain with limited computational resources. — intrapersona

Well don't go to scientists for philosophical advice. Fuck the modern trope that makes scientists out to be these omniscient gurus, the priests of knowledge and power. As if working in a laboratory makes you any more wise than anyone else.