Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I suspect it depends on the philosopher.
You'll never find an applied physicist who cares about epistemological problems, because applied physicists have resolved their epistemological issues a long time ago.
|
That would only be true if you are using the phrase "applied physicist" as a synonym for "engineer".
Consider, "Why are the fundamental particles different?" That question is an explosive, hotly-debated, contentious issue among theoretical physicists as well as those working in "applied" physics at CERN. The question strikes right at the heart of why our minds perceive differences (or create them -- be that as it may).
Quote:
|
I've seen it before. I'd use it more if I thought learning that type of stuff would enrich my life.
|
Enrichment aside, I don't think there is any "safe spot" in science where you somehow absolve yourself of any responsibility of facing epistemology.
There is nothing wrong with taking an epistemological stance. And pointing out that you are taking one is not an underhanded attack to "prove you wrong". Everyone carries a holster around their waist with an Intellectual Gun ready to be drawn at any time to defend their epistemology. I think it would be preferable if people could maturely and calmly declare their epistemic stance. There is no danger in doing so, because there is no way to "prove" an epistemic stance.
Coming back to enrichment. Without an ability to recognize their own epistemology, people exhibit a kind of "nervous defensiveness" in conversation. When you are aware of how your own knowledge is being derived, you gain a calmer, clearer attitude; a type of inner peace that then shows on the outside. But if you prefer to act like a cat that has been cornered, and is hissing and fluffing its fur, that's your prerogative.