Massimo Pigliucci is patrolling the borders again.
Take, for instance, my recurring argument that some (but not all!) of the “new atheists” engage in scientistic attitudes by overplaying the epistemological power of science while downplaying (or even simply negating) the notion that science fundamentally depends on non-empirical (i.e., philosophical) assumptions to even get started.
But if science depends on those assumptions why aren’t those assumptions simply part of science? Why aren’t the assumptions part of what is meant by the word ‘science’?
We already have science to help us solve scientific problems, philosophy does something else by using different tools, so why compare apples and oranges?
But if science rests on philosophical assumptions, then philosophy doesn’t (exclusively) do something … Read the rest
