Perhaps the scientists are just standing on the shoulders of the philosophers who thought out the questions for the scientists to investigate. The philosophers were the primal explorers and even now, the scientists may think they know all the answers, but even they may disagree amongst themselves, and perhaps need the philosophers to help untangle the knots of uncertainty, not necessarily with answers, but with the invention of new questions.

Not being a philosopher but an engineer of education, and a manager by employment as well as a family father, I am in the position of making decisions without having all the facts at office and at home. These choices are often not easy. But they often have a significant impact on people around me. The choices are often important. Kierkegaard like.

And for a country to shut down all schools, all restaurants.... This is a heavy decision, that mean life or death for a substantial part of the communities where the choices have to be made.

Now, why should not the people best suited to THINK make significant contributions to that? And who is more suited to think, than philosophers? Philosophers actually created science. Philosophy - is that not what comes closest to investigate a difficult task and try to come up with the best possible answer? Reasoning?

I agree with you that the philosophers should be involved in decision making, rather than matters just being decided by politicians and scientists.
I think that this especially the situation in the current pandemic. I think I have said this on some other threads, but of course I am sure that the people in power do not log into this site. Unfortunately, philosophy is not given much credibility at all.

I do have some background in philosophy, having studied Social Ethics as a degree. I went into this with a view to looking at important critical social issues. But I think most people, including some employers, have regarded it as a Mickey Mouse degree. I have worked in mental health care but do not have a job at present.

I have been getting into a fairly deep discussion about truth and science (and religion) in the thread which I began on cultural relativism and truth. But aside from the whole question of truth I think that your thread is raising the question of the way in which philosophers is undervalued. I think it is almost approached with prejudice by many people. When, in everyday life conversation, I mention my interest in philosophy, I feel that most people are very dismissive, as if it has no importance.

Sadly, it seems that philosophy viewpoints are almost relegated to the dustbin whereas the ideas of pop singers and celebrities are often heralded in the media. Aside from the whole question of science vs philosophy, perhaps the problem is that we are living in an age of images and a shallow portrayal of truth in the media, and perhaps philosophy is seen as lacking in glamour.
The image of someone reading and contemplating the importance of life and death issues just lacks appeal, while in actual fact everyone is starting to do that now, as the world Is turned upside down.

Now, why should not the people best suited to THINK make significant contributions to that? And who is more suited to think, than philosophers? — Ansiktsburk

Everyone thinks, and people of intellectual professions - such as engineers and managers - can think their way through certain kinds of problems better than most. Philosophers are specialists too. They are better than most at solving certain kinds of intellectual problems (most of which are, like chess, games of their own invention). They are not all head and shoulders above everyone else in any intellectual task that you throw at them. I wouldn't trust a random Plato scholar with making decisions about lockdown, I would want people with relevant skills and experience.

I think philosophers should talk about the "big stuff". But that stuff is prone to be very technical, requiring knowledge that takes patience and study to accrue. Of course philosophers should talk about the intricate issues of physics - provided they have deep understanding of the subject. Of course philosophers should address complicated issues in economics - provided they are economists. We don't live in the Athens of 500BC.

I think what I really like about the Dialogues of Plato is just that they take a bite at stuff that is NOT the kind of things like laws of physics, stuff like friendship, love, how to run a state — Ansiktsburk

A political philosopher needs a background in PolSci. Some denominational ministers are quite good at friendship and love - in that sense they are philosophers. And, of course, amateur philosophers can talk all they want about anything. Sometimes people listen.

@Ansiktsburk As poorly as you expressed your original question, it nevertheless invokes a most elemental problem: the relation between the philosopher and scientist to the political community, which has a very long history indeed...

The original philosophers were the “natural” sort, ie, the mathematicians physicists and astronomers. They were born with a love for the understanding of, and an ability to understand, the rationale for the movement of earthly and heavenly bodies, the laws governing geometric figures and the behavior of levers and sunlight, etc. The study of man, however, was of little interest to them at that time, probably because of his precarious nature, due to the admixture of chance in him, his free-will...

But these natural philosophers, the Pre-Socratic, though all they really cared about were their circles and squares, their their atoms and astral bodies, were prone to become exiles and enemies of the state whenever their discoveries conflicted with the religious beliefs of their communities. For example, the findings of Thales, the first to predict an eclipse of the sun, showed that the heavenly bodies move by natural law, not by Zeus’ will...

But they could also be protectors of their communities, as Archimedes proved to be when, through engines of war designed by his novel art of mechanics, he held off from Syracuse the invading Roman army, burning and wrecking their fleet with his mirrors and cables...

Archimedes, nevertheless, ordered that all his manuscripts on engineering be burnt upon his death as being beneath the dignity of posterity...thus proving himself to be of pure philosophic impulse, caring only about things theoretical and disdaining the practical.

These ancient examples encapsulate the difficulties philosophy or science face when confronted with its relation to community, the mass of untheoretical men it must live with down here on earth, a Thales falling into a well, or an Archimedes being run through by a Roman soldier because he refused to quit his geometrical meditation before its completion rather than be led to the conquering Marcellus. Later philosophers began to turn their attention, therefore, to the human things, and soon men like Socrates were reasoning about the just and unjust, good and evil, the well and poorly lived life, becoming introspective and examining their relationship to other men.

The most powerful earliest attempt to solve the problem was Plato’s dialogues, and he took the side of theory over practice, appealing to the most influential in Ancient Greece, the young aristocrats who were best educated and best positioned to gain power (only remember Alcibiades) and thus condemn to death or exile philosophers. Plato’s Socrates is shown to be their best friend, using his theory to help them examine their own accidental lives for the benefit of all, and thusly promoting an acceptance of, if not participation in, the theoretical life a very few men only are blessed to be endowed with by nature...

After the Dark Ages, however, and the Renaissance, when philosophers (who had never disappeared or become extinct, only gone underground) re-emerged, for some reason, perhaps because of the advance of natural science, perhaps from weariness of persecution, led by Machiavelli, and and followed by Locke, Hobbes, Hume, et al, they began to promote the practical side of philosophy, what good it can do for men at large in a radical about-face to Plato and Aristotle and the medieval philosophers. Their impulse was political: if philosophers become willing, against their nature, to benefit men, maybe men will become more acceptant of them, who only want to understand the nature of things, and will then see them more as an Archimedean military engineer, and not so much as a Thalian well-dweller, who, looking up to heaven, failed to appreciate that he lived on earth, where you can step into pot-holes while contemplating the divine...

Btw, Thales, beset by accusations that his science was impractical, entered the olive trade and had great success, proving that problem solving can be used by thoughtful men to solve men’s many practical problems, whether in business or trade...

...but the same problem remains for philosophers, for theoretical men to our day: “am I a lover of truth first, or a benefactor of ppl? Am I a seeker after the nature of viruses, or the man who tells you how best to arrange public policy to avoid its spread? Am I the discoverer of the effects of greenhouse gases on the environment, or am I the one who best shapes public policy to curtail emissions?

Am I the discoverer of the effects of greenhouse gases on the environment, or am I the one who best shapes public policy to curtail emissions? — Todd Martin

The former quite obviously needs an extensive science background, and the latter needs to be very conversant with politics, governmental processes, and social psychology. All above and beyond the abilities to reason and write well about past generations of philosophers.

I think it is a tough path to take these days, and I don't envy those professionals who do. It would be more than I could accomplish. Math, by itself, was hard enough.

@jgill I disagree with you Gilly. I think the “ability to reason and write well about past generations of philosophers” is most needed in our day when we have forgotten the original examples of the tension between the thinker and society, and the accommodations that were made down through the centuries in an attempt to reconcile them.

For example, whence the term “social psychology”? Modern psychology had its origins in Freud, who was influenced in his idea of the Id by Nietzsche, who in turn was influenced by Rousseau and his break with the Enlightenment philosophers. Whence “creativity”, “charisma”, “life-style”, “values” (as opposed to morals), etc? All these terms are translations from Nietzsche or Weber, from that powerful efflorescence of German philosophy not 200 years old. If we remain ignorant of the origins of the very words we use to describe our world, and which shape our understanding of it, then we become pawns to the merely current, the ephemeral, what passes for wisdom but only in the forum of public opinion.

it's not that we shouldn't talk about the big stuff so much as that we can't.

Instead, we enact the big stuff in what we do.

Nice presentation, Todd. From Wiki "Contemporary Philosophy":

"The end result of professionalization for philosophy has meant that work being done in the field is now almost exclusively done by university professors holding a doctorate in the field publishing in highly technical, peer-reviewed journals. While it remains common among the population at large for a person to have a set of religious, political or philosophical views that they consider their "philosophy", these views are rarely informed or connected to the work being done in professional philosophy today."

Sounds a lot like the professional mathematics community. On the other hand, Nagel has much to say apart from the highly technical. Certainly philosophy has much to offer in ethics, morals, and judicial areas.

Am I a seeker after the nature of viruses, or the man who tells you how best to arrange public policy to avoid its spread? — Todd Martin

Referring to the esteemed Marcus Gabriel: "In an April 2020 interview he called European measures against COVID 19 unjustified and a step towards cyber dictatorship, saying the use of health apps was a Chinese or North Korean strategy. He said the coronavirus crisis called into question the idea that only scientific and technical progress could lead to human and moral progress. He said there was a paradox of virocracy, to save lives one replaced democracy by virocracy." (Wiki)

The reasoning and wisdom of an accomplished philosopher. :roll:

@jgill I investigated Mr. Gabriel on-line, and I find that his abstruse investigations into the nature of ontology, etc, scarcely qualify him to comment on dictatorship (would he argue that it exists or is part of the world?) or health apps or technical or (especially) moral progress; it seems to me he is in the position Sakharov was many years earlier, who, though only a nuclear scientist, promoted the humane reformation of the Soviet Union: his position on social issues was not derived from his science.

But I thank you for the lead, because it directed me to YouTube philosophical forums where a panel of decorated and published members of current academia debated things like whether the soul exists, the difference between it and the self or consciousness, all of which gave me, who is so unacquainted with the goings-on of current academic philosophy, an idea of their concerns.

One thing that struck me is how finely they seek to split hairs: one is reminded of the famous debate among medieval Christian philosophers about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I suppose the oldest follies are repeated down through the ages...in theory and in practice.

As I mentioned, professional philosophy appears to be much like professional mathematics. Even in youthful days it was not easy for me to keep abreast of progress in my area of expertise, much less so in other areas. Those times are long gone, so I toy with elementary concepts I find interesting merely as a hobby. Somewhat analogous to philosophy appearing in this relaxed forum. :cool:

Everyone thinks, and people of intellectual professions - such as engineers and managers - can think their way through certain kinds of problems better than most. Philosophers are specialists too. They are better than most at solving certain kinds of intellectual problems (most of which are, like chess, games of their own invention). They are not all head and shoulders above everyone else in any intellectual task that you throw at them. I wouldn't trust a random Plato scholar with making decisions about lockdown, I would want people with relevant skills and experience. — SophistiCat

As a matter of fact, I am an Engineer and do from time to time work as a manager. I am also a family father. I do take a lot of decisions that is NOT scientifically grounded.
Those are however small decisions. There are much larger decisions, Covid strategy, Global warming handling.
And OK, lets say that the random Plato scolar might not be the best to decide Covid strategy for a country - Isn't it still a question that should be handled as wisely as possible? These are questions where science give NO answer on how to act. One scientist say this, another that, and you have the complexity of people living their lives.
How to do this best, solve large questions where there are no nice little truths around virtually philosophical questions? Isnt the issue here - how to be wise?

So let me counter the random Plato Scolar with a philosophical department, where the members are the most prominent philosophers from the country, highest paid in the country, giving up all their personal political beliefs, just there to think as good as possible on the most difficult and urgent problems.
Can you give me an example of people better suited than philosophers? Is it better now, in states with democracy, going this or that way, Having an Obama, then a Trump, and the US situation is way better than in my Scandinavian home country.

This sounds a lot like the old idea of a "philosopher king" - or "philosopher kings." There is a reason why this naive patriarchal fantasy was never a reality.

You know what's the problem with your idea? This part:

"giving up all their personal political beliefs, just there to think as good as possible"

Hi there, I'm one of the best philosopher in the world! Don't worry, even If you didn't vote for me, even if you don't live in a democracy anymore and it is ME who is making the rules, now, I would never, never, never take advantage of that, for my own interest! Why, you ask? Well, because I'm a philosopher. I'm wise. Trust me! ; )

I have no problem with philosophers talking about the big issues. The question is, should anyone pay attention to what they say?