Philosophers always seem to intent in discussing why philosophy has value. While every piece of science which moved onwards and away from philosophers are intent on showing why they have value.
It also seems just laughable when philosophers try to impose their field on others they know nothing about. Like philosophy in the multiverse or quantum mechanics. It boils down to “I don’t understand this thing, likely others don’t either so they need someone uniquely skilled like me to explain it to them!”
You never see them actually going into the concrete problems of other fields like: The philosophy of the Navier-stokes equation in light of new more efficient micro fluidics chips”. Philosophers thrive on the boundary between what we know really well and what we know but not that well. And that boundary is shrinking.
That’s why there is a feeding frenzy in philosophers discussing recent advances in deep connected graphs of simple computing nodes for modeling and classification, from people who don’t even know what a a matrix is and postulating laughable things like that’s these networks will spontaneously develop their own understanding of philosophy purely based on the fact that’s the space they exist in is called something to do with intelligence.
I sort of agree with you. Philosophers I knew in grad school were somewhat of dilletantes who didn’t want to commit to becoming an expert within a single scientific epistemology.
But... I don’t know, that feels a little uncharitable too.
I think the charitable reading is that yes, a philosopher of science doesn’t know the science as well as the scientist. They are not as close to the cutting edge of what we know....
But what they can do is look closer at how the scientist knows. And what other people who are not that scientist know. And from there situate the knowledge in a wider context. Not knowledge the universe but knowledge about knowings.
It also seems just laughable when philosophers try to impose their field on others they know nothing about. Like philosophy in the multiverse or quantum mechanics. It boils down to “I don’t understand this thing, likely others don’t either so they need someone uniquely skilled like me to explain it to them!”
You never see them actually going into the concrete problems of other fields like: The philosophy of the Navier-stokes equation in light of new more efficient micro fluidics chips”. Philosophers thrive on the boundary between what we know really well and what we know but not that well. And that boundary is shrinking. That’s why there is a feeding frenzy in philosophers discussing recent advances in deep connected graphs of simple computing nodes for modeling and classification, from people who don’t even know what a a matrix is and postulating laughable things like that’s these networks will spontaneously develop their own understanding of philosophy purely based on the fact that’s the space they exist in is called something to do with intelligence.