I just finished reading the article you posted there and I’m again impressed by Pigliucci. Maybe it’s echo chamber, I dunno – I have to keep confirmation bias in check here, but I found myself nodding a lot.
Here’s the thing of it for me: Philosophy and Science _are_ different fields at present. At the same time, they can and do inform each other in an ongoing basis.
The recent polarization over the past few years, where “Science has killed Philosophy” spoken by the public defenders of Science, all strongly influential of public opinion, is neither doing a benefit for science _or_ philosophy.
“We need science”. Yes we do. Science needs public support. It needs funding. It needs a lot of things. It needs to not be ignored. So, I don’t mind there being science advocates out there. I grew up on Carl Sagan. He was very influential to me and inspirational, much like these guys are today.
BUT: he wasn’t so polarizing. Even when he went after religions, he didn’t go after RELIGION. He went after bad religion, just as he went after bad govt, just as he went after bad science.
Granted, he was a logical positivist, very much the product of the times and subject to the limitations of logical positivism (I subject my heroes to the same critiques I would anybody) – but his style was different.
Oh well. I don’t like the general polarization that’s been happening all over, but what can I do? I try to make bridges here I can and encourage others to do so as well. Best I cando.