Also, this may be a case of the child killing the parents. Modern Science is an outgrowth of Philosophy, taking a subset of Philosophy – a particular set of views, and running with it and making amazing progress.
Science is pragmatism. Generally, it’s reductionism. It’s materialism.
With these philosophical limitations, a lot of fantastic things are being accomplished. It’s similar to the power of limiting circuits to binary logic: we’ve made amazing progress when we eliminated analog circuits.
So, I wouldn’t say either Science or Philosophy is limited. They’re each valuable for the contributions they make in the areas they make it.
But just as some people need to pursue physics as far as they can take it, others need to pursue philosophy as far as they can take it. There’s some overlap, sure. But not much. They also educate each other: Heidegger for example has informed modern cognitive science. The hammer *does* become a part of the person as they use it.
Oh yes, their reliance on the “closed world” of The Question. I find that to be very annoying.
I have a similar criticism when results in the sciences are lab experiments rather than field about certain subjects where simply BEING a lab experiment changes the kinds of possible results and limits them to fulfilling the criteria of the hypothesis.
But, the marvelous thing ABOUT science is that it’s ok. Lab results, published peer-reviews finding often DON’T get replicated by anybody and are unique, solitary events, never to be seen again.
But, that’s a built-in part of the process. Findings can stay and be removed or amplified as need be. Someone who is skeptical can try to replicate or discover something different and so the whole process is rather like emergence. It may not be perfect, but I think it’s the community that makes the practices of the Sciences so very strong.
A lone wolf can be a philosopher. But to be a scientist requires a community.
Indeed, and that’s part of the criticism I have when Bill Nye, prominent figure as he is, poo-poos Philosophy as he does. The scientific method is _not_ a swiss-army knife for *everything*. It’s good for what it’s good for.
It’s likely you’re correct about the future, but notice you’ve crossed from Science into Science Fiction.
It may be “Hard Science Fiction” but still Fiction. Knowing the difference is important.
That’s social science fiction. Looks sciece-y, but it’s still fiction. It’s important to keep them distinguished, or else everything becomes a vague muddle of stuff all labeled Science.
<— pinning my bets on better engineering techniques, technology improvements, and improved industry with the assistance of scientific theories as need arises. smile emoticon
I just can’t call them all Science.