5 Comments

- there is however the importance of non-analytic philosophy of science. like first of all, like ... "naturalism" in your sense isn't the only game in town when it comes to philosophy, y'know, it's a philosophical problem. and there's a ton of continental philosophy which engages seriously with the sciences

eg.

- badiou engages mathematics, eg. zfc, category theory, and has an early book the concept of model critiquing carnap and quine. also a marxist

- there's mathematicans who have done continental philosophy like gilles chatelet, whose figuring space draws on deleuze, derrida and historical philosophers like hegel and schelling

- there's derrida's very detailed and powerful engagement with genetics and biology and cybernetics in his life death (la vie la mort) seminars, also look up dawne mccance's the invention of life death and vitale's biodeconstruction.

and scientists do engage with them! there are mathematicians who read badiou. there was recently a colloquium on derrida's life death which had not only philosophers but also biologists and mathematicians like giuseppe longo. chatelet was a mathematician himself.

Expand full comment

Yeah OP’s defense of philosophy sounds very weak. It basically does away with the whole existential/spiritual dimension of philosophy, not to mention aesthetics, morality, politics. All that is left is look at us guys we are sort of doing science too, just from the outside… but we are interesting at parties I promise.

Expand full comment

fair

Expand full comment

I tried to articulate my point of view slightly better on my own blog: https://open.substack.com/pub/mariopasquato/p/no

Expand full comment

Are you familiar with David Deutsch’s philosophy of science, he is very Popperian

Expand full comment