The Pros claim science for their own, so the Antis reject it. Phenomenology says science is useful for understanding many things but not literally all things, so the extremists on the Pro sidereject phenomenology for being “impure”. The Anti side then takes phenomenology in and plays up the limits-of-science thing while downplaying the usefulness-of-science part. As a result phenomenologists more often find themselves having to defend their ideas against material realism, scientism, and other ideas on the Pro side and less against irrationality, mysticism, and other incompatible positions on the Anti side. This creates a skewed picture that implies phenomenology is anti-science by association, and it doesn’t help that some phenomenologists, being humans, may actually take up sides in this debate.
That part was useful for me. I haven’t looked at the discussions in enough detail to check your proposal, but it’s giving a coherent story for how phenomenology get its bad rap.
That part was useful for me. I haven’t looked at the discussions in enough detail to check your proposal, but it’s giving a coherent story for how phenomenology get its bad rap.