Don't think there is "method" in philosophy, especially modern philosophy. Many modern philosophy is just abstract thinking without having an anchor. So, no, science doesn't need it.
Traditionally, the term "philosophy" referred to any body of knowledge.[17][29] In this sense, philosophy is closely related to religion, mathematics, natural science, education and politics. Newton's 1687 Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy is classified in the 2000s as a book of physics; he used the term "natural philosophy" because it used to encompass disciplines that later became associated with sciences such as astronomy, medicine and physics.[18] wikipedia
No method or no method that you recognize? Please give some examples of "methodless" philosophy.
This is for people who wish to debate the merits of each method.[Science and philosophy] Where did I read this?
Not sure what you mean by "So, no, science doesn't need it."
I partly agree. I am rather proud to report that the philosophy of science classes I took were more enlightening than most of the rest of it . I learned a great deal of geophysics one term that I still find helpful more than 20 years latter.
I think the second best class I took was the "study of pataphysics" where we studied the history and method of the absurd. Where we had to write a very complete suicide note, and practice our deep soul laugh while reading numerous french authors. I think I got a much deserved A in the class and often lead the class in laughter after popping open a small can of v-8.
I did love the classes in logic I took. I practiced my skills on the classical proofs for God, and a few other charmers. I think this finally nailed the coffin lid tight enough to exclude further interest but I still wonder if I might have missed something important.
Posted by levanTrue good post
Posted by McflewsterThis is a statement of hope that gives me great inspiration.