On the blog of Michael Huemer there is a comment that compares changes in philosophy to changes in science. And I have been wondering about that. After all, changes in science are because of new evidence. But that does not mean that philosophy is just speculation. Rather philosophy has a different kind of task--to get the big picture and make sense out of it.
And also I might mention that in fact changes in science are not just because of new evidence. Rather taking a look at Einstein. There was a contradiction between Maxwell and Newton. A certain kind of sense caused Einstein to choose Maxwell and to modify Newton. And Copernicus was not accepted because of new evidence. Rather his approach was simple as opposed to having to add more rings. It was the math that appealed to people--not new evidence. In the editions of his books, it is the math pages that are greased from fingers going over and over them.
[But sometimes it is experiments that do say something. The black box causing the Plank h bar. The success of QM to explain the spectrum of light coming out of excited atoms. String theory from things spinning around faster when they have more mass.]
And also I might mention that in fact changes in science are not just because of new evidence. Rather taking a look at Einstein. There was a contradiction between Maxwell and Newton. A certain kind of sense caused Einstein to choose Maxwell and to modify Newton. And Copernicus was not accepted because of new evidence. Rather his approach was simple as opposed to having to add more rings. It was the math that appealed to people--not new evidence. In the editions of his books, it is the math pages that are greased from fingers going over and over them.
[But sometimes it is experiments that do say something. The black box causing the Plank h bar. The success of QM to explain the spectrum of light coming out of excited atoms. String theory from things spinning around faster when they have more mass.]
