Physicist educates philosophers on how to think rationally.

[RandomPoster]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

 

[Unkotare]

....

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? .....

I don't see how this can be controversial......

Then that is where your education needs to continue.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Why would science be concerned with culture?....

You never heard of anthropology?

 

[RandomPoster]

....

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? .....

I don't see how this can be controversial......

Then that is where your education needs to continue.

Into what, Philosophy?

...

Why would science be concerned with culture?....

You never heard of anthropology?

Anthropology is not a science. Many anthropologists are coming out and saying this. In fact, the American Anthropological Association has officially removed references to the word science from it's official mission statement.

Anthropology Group Drops ‘Science’ References, Deepening a Rift

"decision by the American Anthropological Association at its recent annual meeting to strip the word “science” from a statement of its long-range plan."

The article says the following about the views of one of the outspoken critics of recent changes within the field of anthropology itself.

"He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said."

Here is another article written by an anthropologist disgusted with their own field.

No Science, Please. We're Anthropologists.

"In the messages flying back and forth, I was reminded why anthropologists refer to the annual conference as "the meetings," plural: it's because they go and meet with their own actual disciplinary types, in separate groups, so that the real scientists don't have to deal too much with the fluff-head cultural anthropological types who think science is just another way of knowing.

Not all cultural anthropologists are fluff-heads, of course. You can usually tell the ones who are fluff-heads by their constant need to look like superheroes for oppressed peoples, and you can tell the non-fluff-heads by their attention to data. But the non-fluff-head cultural anthropologists are feeling utterly beleaguered in this environment that actively denigrates science and consistently promotes activism over data collection and scientific theorizing."

 

[Unkotare]

It seems Semantics is the field of Philosophy you are most attracted to.

 

[RandomPoster]

It seems Semantics is the field of Philosophy you are most attracted to.

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

The most interesting quote from Krauss, in my opinion, was when he said:

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

Despite what people will try to tell you, Logical Empiricism seems to be favored more in the hard, physical sciences and STEM overall. STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, etc.

The obvious conclusion, therefore, is that Logical Empiricism should be the underlying Philosophy for all fields of study and should guide all forms of discourse.

 

[Unkotare]

There is nothing more dangerous than...

 

[Olde Europe]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

 

[RandomPoster]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

 

[Unkotare]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

The funny thing is, the scientist is ignoring the fact that science is merely a form of applied philosophy.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

How is it that Man, having eaten the fruit of the tree of (Perfect Knowledge) of Good and Evil can be ignorant of any Thing?

 

[RandomPoster]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

 

[RandomPoster]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

How is it that Man, having eaten the fruit of the tree of (Perfect Knowledge) of Good and Evil can be ignorant of any Thing?

You can lead a horse to water, except you can't make him drink.

 

[RandomPoster]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

The funny thing is, the scientist is ignoring the fact that science is merely a form of applied philosophy.

No, people understand that Philosophers started an experiment millenia ago. Science is the experiment and Philosophers won't accept the results of the experiment when scientists come back and say "Logical Positivism has served us best overall in the context of the physical sciences". Instead, they attempt to cast any dissenters out as heretics. They have disparaged Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, among others for speaking the truth of their own experiences.

 

[Unkotare]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

.......?????

 

[RandomPoster]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

.......?????

The hysterical feminists didn't like the gender ratio in STEM, so they're trying to fix it by combining it with artsy-fartsy bullshit.

 

[Olde Europe]

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

All I am saying is this: If you can't define "problem" and "progress," much less "solve / solution", and "objectively", much less measure any of that, you seem to be giving yourself the appearance to deal in knowledge, while your definition (measurable) directly contradicts that claim. That would be a "self-refuting position". That's before we get to nuclear bombs and global warming, arguably also gifts of STEM, and direct threats to our survival.

No one this side of insanity would believe the number of cars, airplanes, and open heart surgeries would constitute "progress". So, there's some difficulty with that term, and philosophers might, I guess, be helpful to clarify some of that. I also believe that Mr. Krauss stands with at least one foot on ground prepared by philosophers and their work on methodical, epistemic thinking, even though he might not know it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Here is a video where a Physicist named Lawrence Krauss has a discussion with Philosophers and attempts to help them gain a better perspective on how to approach the process of furthering knowledge



Here are some completely rational quotes of his that the rest of the panel and most of the commenters on the video seem to disagree with. It was an interesting video.

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

How can anyone disagree with that opinion? The panel seemed irritated and so do most of the commenters on the video.

"The only philosophy I need to do is not the philosophy I learned from Popper or Kuhn or any … oh I read them all. I learned the philosophy of science from Feynman because I learned how science is done from scientists."

This seemed to upset the panel for some unknown reason when all he did is describe his personal experiences and how he practices in his own field.

One of the philosophers said the following about him.

"He claims that the only knowledge we have of the world is empirical knowledge"

I don't see how this can be controversial.

"it's somewhat a surprise to me to see that professor Krause still holds to the principles of logical positivism. It seems to me that he's saying we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven, which is a self-refuting position"

What?

"but still I couldn't help resisting on this gospel of the New Atheists to whom professor Krauss belongs. For 2000 years, the Christian God has formed our culture to every new generation "You are much more significant than you could ever have imagined". My question is what will happen with the culture?"

Why would science be concerned with culture?

In another video, Krauss made the following statements:

"If you can't empirically measure it, it isn't knowledge in my opinion."

"I don't think there are other ways of knowing. If you think about what we know, other ways of knowing are an illusion. It doesn't come from revelation. It ultimately comes from an empirical basis."

Krauss makes a lot of sense, except people reacted negatively towards him. He's actually trying to help the field of Philosophy of Science. Other scientists appear to have given up on the field. Steven Hawking said "Philosophy is dead." Richard Feynman stated "The philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” Bill Nye and Neil de Grasse Tyson have basically called Philosophy of Science irrelevant.

I have been reading that before the 1950s, the relationship between philosophers and scientists was much better and has been deteriorating over time. Einstein had very positive things to say about Philosophers and there is an exchange of letters between Einstein and a Philosopher of Science named Moritz Schlick in 1915 that can be found on the internet which suggests that Einstein very much respected the viewpoints of Philosophers of Science.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169428?journalCode=pto&

"Einstein writes to physicist—philosopher Schlick (1882–1936), a professor of philosophy at the University of Rostock who was to become a founder of the Vienna Circle of logical empiricists. Einstein is responding to an essay Schlick wrote on special and general relativity shortly before the general theory was published in its final form in November 1915. Einstein points out that relativity theory is a blow to the Kantian doctrine that the human mind has a priori knowledge of some absolute truths about the real world"

Can scientists help Philosophers of Science save their field and make it relevant again by showing them a better way of thinking?

The funny thing is, the scientist is ignoring the fact that science is merely a form of applied philosophy.

No, people understand that Philosophers started an experiment millenia ago. Science is the experiment and Philosophers won't accept the results of the experiment when scientists come back and say "Logical Positivism has served us best overall in the context of the physical sciences". Instead, they attempt to cast any dissenters out as heretics. They have disparaged Steven Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, among others for speaking the truth of their own experiences.

Nope, you're making that up. Logical positivism is a relatively recent idea, emerging (early 20th century) well after the modern realm of scientific study began. In fact, the whole idea behind logical positivism is to convert philosophy as a whole into field that more closely resembles a hard science. But that is an ass backwards approach, because as I explained a moment ago, science is a form of applied philosophy. Trying to turn philosophy into a form of applied science is contradictory.

 

[Unkotare]

No, the study of how to solve problems and make progress that can be objectively measured is all there is to Philosophy.

Define "problem" and "progress," please. When you are done with that, and in the light of the foregoing, proceed toward "solve / solution", and "objectively".

Because, to me it seems there's no clear meaning to any of the terms.

Define "define", define "you", define "done", define this, define that, blah blah blah.

Again, STEM has given us cars, airplanes, open heart surgery, electricity, computers, space travel, and much, much more. It coincidentally happens to be the one area where you will find the highest concentration of logical empiricists. It is also the one area of academia resilient to Postmodernism and Critical Theory, the two biggest threats to civilization and technological as well as economic progress.

It's called "STEAM" now. Let it sink in.

It's only called STEAM by a bunch of hot headed blowhards obsessed with "fixing" gender ratios that are not broken, except simply reflect a pattern of choices people tend to make when given that pesky thing known as free will.

You seem to have a bug up your ass about gender.

Better get used to STEAM, because that’s the commonly used acronym now, like it or not.