Posted: Jan 18, 2017 12:19 am
by Thommo
BWE wrote:It's totally fair but we straightened that out with the tautology bit, no?


Well, I would say that settles the issue of whether you would say that philosophy (or philosophers) are involved with pretty well every field of human endeavour. Being charitable maybe even that they contribute to every field of human endeavour.

Does that mean that the fields rely on such books, on such philosophy? That there could be no such field if no such books were being written? I would say the answer is clearly no. There is a large gap between the weak claim that such books are written and the strong claim that such books are the core of every discipline and that the discipline couldn't even exist without them.

For example, here's a quote from that paper I mentioned I found and read last night:-
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 8101100306
10. Respondent. Popper’s more the fashion now than he was twenty years ago. I would very much subscribe to this viewpoint... .
Interviewer. So you think Popper’s had a significant influence on the thinking of scientists.
Respondent. I don’t think he has at all. Which is a great pity really. I think the good scientists think that way anyway.

(note this is a single quote from a variety of different opinions, not a conclusion of the paper or anything, you can also find the opposite view expressed)

I think the whole point is that people (in this case working social scientists) disagree on the extent to which this philosophy has an influence, with some (actually quite a few) saying not only that it's not the core of the discipline but that it does not at all have a significant influence.