I’m not sure what you’re worried about. Just as you can’t force people to move on from a problem that you think has been solved, so too they can’t force you to wait while they work it out.
In the early modern period various thinkers were asking questions that would ultimately lead to the foundations of modern science (I’m thinking of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke and others). Philosophers have continued worrying about a lot of these issues (problem of induction, demarcation) while the scientists have moved on and made many fruitful discoveries. You may think that this shows that the philosophers have wasted their time, but so what? It hasn’t slowed science down. It has also proved to be important. When new discoveries (particularly in physics) question the underlying assumptions, or where the method seems inadequate for solving the problem, then it turns out to be rather useful that there are some philosophers still thinking about these things.
So, you are free to carry on with your assumptions, and ignore others who think the matter is not solved, but further down the line you might be grateful that others were a bit more hesitant.
When new discoveries (particularly in physics) question the underlying assumptions, or where the method seems inadequate for solving the problem, then it turns out to be rather useful that there are some philosophers still thinking about these things.
Thomas Kuhn agrees with you:
It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.
I notice that Kuhn does not say that the scientists turn to philosophers. So are they really “turning to philosophical analysis”? Or are they just, because they must examine more basic assumptions that they usually need to, perforce turning to thinking at the level where the disagreements can be resolved? In the process, what they are doing may look like what philosophers do, but they eventually settle on an answer and move on. Philosophy never seems to do that.
In the early modern period various thinkers were asking questions that would ultimately lead to the foundations of modern science
Indeed, much of what we think of as “modern science” used to be called “natural philosophy”. Even “logic” used to be considered the realm of philosophers rather than mathematicians. Philosophy may be maligned in part due to a linguistic selection bias where, as soon as we start to really understand a subject, we stop calling it “philosophy”.
I’m not sure what you’re worried about. Just as you can’t force people to move on from a problem that you think has been solved, so too they can’t force you to wait while they work it out.
In the early modern period various thinkers were asking questions that would ultimately lead to the foundations of modern science (I’m thinking of Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, John Locke and others). Philosophers have continued worrying about a lot of these issues (problem of induction, demarcation) while the scientists have moved on and made many fruitful discoveries. You may think that this shows that the philosophers have wasted their time, but so what? It hasn’t slowed science down. It has also proved to be important. When new discoveries (particularly in physics) question the underlying assumptions, or where the method seems inadequate for solving the problem, then it turns out to be rather useful that there are some philosophers still thinking about these things.
So, you are free to carry on with your assumptions, and ignore others who think the matter is not solved, but further down the line you might be grateful that others were a bit more hesitant.
Thomas Kuhn agrees with you:
from “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”
I notice that Kuhn does not say that the scientists turn to philosophers. So are they really “turning to philosophical analysis”? Or are they just, because they must examine more basic assumptions that they usually need to, perforce turning to thinking at the level where the disagreements can be resolved? In the process, what they are doing may look like what philosophers do, but they eventually settle on an answer and move on. Philosophy never seems to do that.
Indeed, much of what we think of as “modern science” used to be called “natural philosophy”. Even “logic” used to be considered the realm of philosophers rather than mathematicians. Philosophy may be maligned in part due to a linguistic selection bias where, as soon as we start to really understand a subject, we stop calling it “philosophy”.