Various dialogs on philosophy of science I’ve had
Arts, humanities, and faith provided a fertile soil. I’m not sure technology gets the full credit–given that both sides used those tools. Also, the philosophy of science, arts, and ethical philosophy have kept certain practices in science at bay.
Moreover, your point is that they have been mutually re-enforcing–and thats hard to deny. I would suggest that its precisely at the interfaces where its important to not neglect the role of design…the arts….rhetoric….philosophy
I’m not sure how far technology would have gotten without the Protestant work-ethic to give it rocket fuel or the family to be the backbone of our developments across our country. Moreover, the cultural concerns kept crime in check and provided a mechanism for weighing competing interests.
I think you misunderstand my point. There is no such thing as a scientist who is also not a philosopher of science. Their conclusions section and commentary are part of the philosophy of science. Also, futurism is part of the philosophy of science. Those “be a scientist” or “be inspired” articles, also arguably tangentially in the philosophy of science to the extent they articulate its ideology. The philosophy of science works in tandem with science. Probably most of the science blogs and publications on line traffic in both science and commentary. I may be playing a bit flexible with the term–but my point is to say I think the distinctions don’t hold up in either people or publications. This means that Feymann can both be a scientist and a philosopher of science. To the extent that he’s written criticisms or analysis of the nature of academic science–he is a philosopher of science. To the extent that he is a public advocate for science–his speeches probably traffic in the philosophy of science or something other than pure science.