My undergraduate professor and thesis adviser, Hank Kreuzman, had a letter published in Science News. The letter, written with Wooster geology professor Mark Wilson, complained of an editorial whose view was apparently that, for the most part, philosophers do nothing but screw up science and get in the way. It was the sort of editorial bound to raise some hackles, and I think the response of Krezuman and Wilson is appropriate.
The original author, Tom Siegfried, offers a petulant response which makes me feel bad for him. The response betrays an unfortunate sort of philosophical education-- the kind that made no serious attempt to wrestle with or charitably interpret difficult philosophers, instead reducing those philosophers to mere punching bags. If, for example, you find Kant or Comte difficult, the appropriate response is not to assume that these guys were commited to implausible or grand claims without reason, but to work at it, to find the charitable interpretation. In a way, I think Siegfried was cheated, and I feel bad for him.
Incidentally, at some future point, I'll post about Kant's philosophy...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I read this Tom Seigfried's response. It seems he doesn't really notice how science and philosophy generally inform the other. Kant and Comte need not have provided any true scientific discoveries to be merited, the same for scientists who only contribute failed experiments; at least now we know what NOT to do (though I make no suggestion as to the quality of either Kant's or Comte's arguments, I only mean to suggest that they need have no lasting power to be admired).
ReplyDeleteI'd really like to read this article, and if you could find a link to it, I think you should put it up.
Ask and ye shall receive.
ReplyDelete