Apr 10 2013: One of the biggest problems I see with university studies in particular is that they are dissociated from what the job market values in terms of skills. Most jobs require a fairly high level of technical skills, and yet most High School graduates lack even the most basic skills to be considered for an entry level job. Universities have traditionally managed to bridge that gap, but as technological changes have accelerated, even Universities are finding that they are ill prepared to deal with the rapid developments and changes.
I live and breathe IT across a pretty broad spectrum - everything from servers and networks to low level users and even disabled people. The one common thing I see, time and time again, is how - even 20 years into the "information age", workers are still unable to deal with even the most basic technology issues. The really scary thing is that it includes relatively young users as well - often recent college graduates.
In my narrow world view, we shouldn't allow a single college degree unless they could demonstrate some competence in basic computing skills and typing. At this point every person should have some training in being able to tell what spam and malware looks like. Instead, we (taxpayers) spend inordinate amounts of our dollars and teacher's time in classes on art, photography (anyone still developing film? LOL!), cooking, and sports. We truly have a nation of amateur athletes that don't know how to turn on an All-In-One computer or know NOT to click on every single link in their emails.
Get a curriculum that is based on industry needs, and which directly leads to competitive jobs and internships with leaders in our various industries. Hold a carrot up in front of our freshmen: "Learn this and earn a real career with unlimited potential", instead of "show up and get a certificate for your wall". Instead of mandatory intro courses on how to find food on campus, perhaps a job-fair or two?
I think I understand your premise, but to me it seems to be rooted in some common misunderstandings.
(1) The economic downturn (i.e. the recession) has actually served to increase the wealth of the top 5% of Americans. They have experienced less risk, not more. The top 1% now owns 25% of all wealth, and the top 5% collectively control 40% of all wealth. This means that the remaining 60% of all wealth are distributed to 95% of people. The downturn has pumped more wealth more rapidly into the upper echelon than before 2007. There is no clear explanation for how this is happening yet, as far as I know, but even people like Warren Buffet are deeply concerned by this trend.
(2) The idea of wealth is closely tied, if not synonymous to the idea of economic risk. How many middle income families go bankrupt due to a hardship - medical expenses, natural disasters, etc - compared to wealthy families? Wealthy people have much larger safety nets, have access to better health care, access to better financial advice, receive more perks from financial institutions and vendors, and ... drum roll... consequently risk less of their wealth.
(3) In addition, wealthy people tend to invest their "surplus" wealth - money they don't need to be able to retire, to be able to exist past their working years. This is not true of middle income people or below. Their investments ARE their retirement funds, their "rainy day" funds, and their emergency money. Most need their Social Security money to be able to eat and pay living expenses.
Sorry Joshua, but I *really* think you're looking at the wrong end of the horse here.
I did take a look at your website, but I can't find any evidence that supports your claims. Instead, you have copies of memos that *might* suggest meetings, etc.
There is, in fact, a large mountain of evidence that points to charlatanism on the subject of remote viewing, and even the "great Randi" has had experience in this particular subject -- including on live TV for all the world to see.
Every single time that double blind studies have been conducted, they were found to be statistically inconclusive. To date, not a single supposed study has yielded repeatable, positive results. This leads to the following conclusion:
"The scientific community rejects remote viewing due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results. It is also considered a pseudoscience."
[taken from wikipedia, please read the article yourself for numerous citations]
The fact of the matter is, that science DID look at this numerous times. It was not rejected on the basis of dogma. It was rejected on the basis of scientific fact after careful observation and years of study (decades, in fact) by numerous private and government entities.
To characterize this nonsense in the context of my flickering candle analogy, I would say the following about remote viewing: "Never mind making a candle flicker. They never even saw the room it was in."
"...materialistic science has no access to the metaphysical"
Exactly, I can't agree more. That's why metaphysical stuff isn't science.
Do you really want to live in a world where "ghost science", "seance communication" and "philosophical quarreling" become part of engineering, mathematics, and physics? Didn't we emerge from that nonsense 150 years ago (finally)?
I would also like to chime in that metaphysical stuff isn't science by default. It isn't science because over the last 150 years or so it has been disproven, time and time again. Every single time that there has been any attempt made to make it part of science through serious study, the studies have come back as either: (1) Completely disproven, (2) inconclusive, or (3) found to be a pack of lies (seriously!?).
I still maintain my original statements: Show me how philosophy is going to make science less biased. Keep in mind, that the *entire* scientific process is a process designed (on purpose) to reduce bias in the first place.
I also noticed that you're playing on dissimilar words, in a fashion that is not unlike when creationists confuse species with "kind" (and move the target around to suit their needs during discussions of the subject - usually related to macro evolution).
Philosophy has not ever discovered a thing. Physics, math, etc, didn't bloom when some philosopher named a course of logic after himself. They were already in place. Occums razor was in place for thousands of years before it was named (basic inference, anyone?) AND used by everyone!!! And yes, so was Newton's "gravity".... HOWEVER: Newton's gravitational constant and formulas were invented by Newton, not by philosphy, or the naming of the phrase "Newton's laws". You're confusing science with philosophy on the grounds of who named what and when - and getting it wrong in the process.
You're making the mistake of putting eggs with flowers, and calling them both food.
"OF COURSE science is biased! Are you saying that the many historical examples of scientific wrong thinking that led to persecutions, executions, and exile of scientists all over the world whose ideas were thought to be rubbish at the time, but later shown to be correct, are no evidence of bias?"
You're making the mistake of turning history inside out. It was emergent science - REAL science, not dogmatic belief in religious junk - which was persecuted, not the other way around.
How many astronomers were persecuted as heretics for publishing their observations?
How many scientists were discredited for having the wrong race, religion, or family history?
You, and others like you, seem to prefer to point to the obviously flawed times in human history when there was no science, when there was no scientific method, and erroneously assign it the label of "science". Let me be clear on the following: Dogmatic beliefs are not science. Even when they called themselves "scientists". The same is true today: Creationism isn't science either (clearly not, when it run by mostly imprisoned ex-school teachers and dentists, making demonstrable perverse claims about the nature of everything including gravity).
Why was the earth ever considered flat? Did anyone actually measure this, or did they just stand in one spot and proclaim it so? Even in earliest antiquity, several mathematicians and astronomers (astrologers?) believed that the sun was at the center of the universe. It took us another 2,000 years of political and religious strife to be able to say this publicly without fear of a fiery death.
Again (and again) I ask this: Please show how philosophy isn't biased, or that the scientific community is biased. I believe you're wrong on both counts, and have failed to show any bias in science.
Lack of proof isn't proof. I keep saying this, time and again. Please make your case.
"The scientific establishment has changed its paradigm many times, and will do so many times in the future. But more than that, it holds contradictory paradigms simultaneously (Theists vs Atheists)."
Can you name any scientific papers (outside of creationist junk science), which mentions any kind of deity as part of the objective statements made by the paper? Don't you think that any paper, during the process of review and publishing, would immediately be rejected for having religious connections of any kind?
As far as I know, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the presence of any deity, past, present, or future, including any ancient sun Gods, cults, or emergent deities, in all of human history. In fact, when "scientists" (I call them "unbelievers", as they often require a complete suspension of naturalistic beliefs, hence "unbelievable" acts of nature) try to find such proof, they *always* end up subverting even the most basic tenets of science (such as truth, repeatability, logic, etc).
Please notice that I have emphasized "always". In all my travels I have never come across any writing, both by professionals and laymen, which passed even the most basic tests. And neither have I ever heard of anyone else, any of my colleagues, friends, etc, finding such work.
Lastly, I would like to chime in on the comment for "paradigm change". Technology isn't a paradigm. Technology is emergent, and as it evolves (snicker) it will change our understanding and our interaction with our natural world. The scientific method is a reduction in bias. Philosophy is a concentration of bias. Science will not be enhanced by any injection, small or large, of philosophy, regardless if it is "pure" philosophy, religious dogma, or anything else.
Science is an industrial methodology. It isn't basket weaving or painting.
"Scientists can't, for example, reliably test whether they are dreaming or not. "
The key word you've injected into your reply is "reliable". In any other part of science, this would refer to error, or perhaps distortion in datapoints. It is still testable, although perhaps not to engineering precision. Your example is a non-example. The fact is that REM sleep and various forms of other sleep and dreaming are well studied subjects. Heck, we even know that lack of sleep (and dreaming) ultimately will kill a person (Jiang Xiaoshan).
"They also can't test whether they're in a simulation that is designed specifically to thwart any test of its existence."
I honestly don't see how you can possibly not call that statement metaphysical. It's basically religious dogma dressed up to look like another episode of "The Matrix", with two parts of conspiracy theory and one part "eye of newt" thrown in for good measure.
Science is about the real, the measurable, the repeatable, and the testable. It is not about thought experiments and movie plots.
I keep reading, time and again from you and others, how philosophy "invented" this and that. All false. At best, philosophy has given names to particular logical constructs. It hasn't invented a single candle flicker. Even the example of Occam's razor (someone else's mention) is far fetched to be included in this discussion. The razor is self-evident. Philosophy didn't create it so that we now have access to its principles! It was there all along. We don't need to invent lavish fairy tales to explain things or make the world into a giant Goldberg machine. The simplest explanations are usually the ones that work. Just ask Fox news (LOL).
Apr 4 2013: "Scientists who fail to consider the implications of the intestability of the universal reliability of the observations they make in the conducting of science have an unexamined assumption sitting at the heart of their process."
Lewis, which part of science is "intestable" (Not legally permitted to make a will, as by reason of being under the age of majority or mentally incompetent.)? I think you may have meant: "Untestable". And my reply is as follows, please read slowly at your own peril:
"Are you asserting the idea that anyone who proposes the idea that intelligent design is responsible for the creation of the universe is promoting "drivel"?"
Yes, I am. There is exactly zero ("0") scientific evidence for any of the mythological beliefs you hold. To put your statements in further context, I could just as easily make up stories about our entire existence being a computer simulation, a dream, or perhaps we are captives of an alien race right now. I could then expand on this by calling 9-11 an instance of alien intervention, all of science a conspiracy, and our current government a puppet entity to alien influence.
Using the same criteria as you have mentioned, all of these (and many, many more) scenarios are all equally true.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. Pointing to science from more than 200 years ago, i.e. pre-darwinian science, and then calling religious dogma of that time which suppressed scientific understanding isn't science either.
Your entire perspective is based on one fallacy after another, and it is deeply troubling that you don't seem to understand, or know, basic scientific methodology. The scientific method is a reduction of bias. It boils down to this one thing, nothing more or less. How can you, in the same breath as when you're trying to shove your religious dogma into this discussion, make the assertion that philosophy will reduce bias? You're clearly giving philosophy too much credit.
The burden is on your shoulders to show how philosophy would go about this. Namely, the steps involved would be:
(1) Show a philosophy that is not based on bias
(2) Show how that philosophy can reduce bias in other biased systems
(3) Show how the scientific method is biased
(4) Prove that application of (2) onto (3) will reduce bias in (3)
Until then, the entire concept of adding philosophical discussion into the scientific method is facetious.
You mention Copernicus, as if he's the posterchild for philosophical science. From my perspective, he's the posterchild for non-philosophical science.
He didn't prevail because he was a nice guy, had a great haircut, knew someone's sister -twice removed-, or wielded some kind of magical power of persuasion over the masses.
He prevailed because others measured the same things he measured, saw the same things he saw, and calculated the same conclusions he calculated. DESPITE what certain "philosophies" (read: Religious dogma of his time) were saying.
Just look at the title of what was used to try to undermine Copernicus' assertions: "On the Truth of Sacred Scripture", written by Giovanni Maria Tolosani.
Again, please consider the "industrial methodology" of science versus the -necessarily self-inflicted- dogmatic approach of philosophy. If there is a better approach in science, it will be adopted. That's not a philosophy. It's a practical truth. Just like somewhere along the way there was a move away from throwing books onto pyres (alongside their writers) rather than today's approach where we just make fun of them on Amazon.com.
I would also argue that "philosophy" has always followed from things that already took place. Nowhere in history has a philosophy created anything. If anything, existing processes, methods, and even thought processes gave rise to new NAMES of philosophies, perhaps. In a sense you could capture the essence of what philosophy is by saying that it "defines the underlying principles with important sounding words", but that's pretty much where it ends.
I keep asking for the same thing, over and over - where/how would philosophy enhance science? And, one more step down the slippery slope - if you did manage to inject it, why stop there? Why not religion next? Or politics? Or ... whatever? Wouldn't they also serve to reduce "bias" on the same level? Do you see my problem with this now? I hope I made it clear.
TEDCred score: +1.90 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: How can we best engage college students in the idea of learning instead of just getting a degree?
I live and breathe IT across a pretty broad spectrum - everything from servers and networks to low level users and even disabled people. The one common thing I see, time and time again, is how - even 20 years into the "information age", workers are still unable to deal with even the most basic technology issues. The really scary thing is that it includes relatively young users as well - often recent college graduates.
In my narrow world view, we shouldn't allow a single college degree unless they could demonstrate some competence in basic computing skills and typing. At this point every person should have some training in being able to tell what spam and malware looks like. Instead, we (taxpayers) spend inordinate amounts of our dollars and teacher's time in classes on art, photography (anyone still developing film? LOL!), cooking, and sports. We truly have a nation of amateur athletes that don't know how to turn on an All-In-One computer or know NOT to click on every single link in their emails.
Get a curriculum that is based on industry needs, and which directly leads to competitive jobs and internships with leaders in our various industries. Hold a carrot up in front of our freshmen: "Learn this and earn a real career with unlimited potential", instead of "show up and get a certificate for your wall". Instead of mandatory intro courses on how to find food on campus, perhaps a job-fair or two?
A comment on Conversation: Social Equality? So share the expenses of the wealthy, too.
I think I understand your premise, but to me it seems to be rooted in some common misunderstandings.
(1) The economic downturn (i.e. the recession) has actually served to increase the wealth of the top 5% of Americans. They have experienced less risk, not more. The top 1% now owns 25% of all wealth, and the top 5% collectively control 40% of all wealth. This means that the remaining 60% of all wealth are distributed to 95% of people. The downturn has pumped more wealth more rapidly into the upper echelon than before 2007. There is no clear explanation for how this is happening yet, as far as I know, but even people like Warren Buffet are deeply concerned by this trend.
(2) The idea of wealth is closely tied, if not synonymous to the idea of economic risk. How many middle income families go bankrupt due to a hardship - medical expenses, natural disasters, etc - compared to wealthy families? Wealthy people have much larger safety nets, have access to better health care, access to better financial advice, receive more perks from financial institutions and vendors, and ... drum roll... consequently risk less of their wealth.
(3) In addition, wealthy people tend to invest their "surplus" wealth - money they don't need to be able to retire, to be able to exist past their working years. This is not true of middle income people or below. Their investments ARE their retirement funds, their "rainy day" funds, and their emergency money. Most need their Social Security money to be able to eat and pay living expenses.
Sorry Joshua, but I *really* think you're looking at the wrong end of the horse here.
A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
I did take a look at your website, but I can't find any evidence that supports your claims. Instead, you have copies of memos that *might* suggest meetings, etc.
There is, in fact, a large mountain of evidence that points to charlatanism on the subject of remote viewing, and even the "great Randi" has had experience in this particular subject -- including on live TV for all the world to see.
Every single time that double blind studies have been conducted, they were found to be statistically inconclusive. To date, not a single supposed study has yielded repeatable, positive results. This leads to the following conclusion:
"The scientific community rejects remote viewing due to the absence of an evidence base, the lack of a theory which would explain remote viewing, and the lack of experimental techniques which can provide reliably positive results. It is also considered a pseudoscience."
[taken from wikipedia, please read the article yourself for numerous citations]
The fact of the matter is, that science DID look at this numerous times. It was not rejected on the basis of dogma. It was rejected on the basis of scientific fact after careful observation and years of study (decades, in fact) by numerous private and government entities.
To characterize this nonsense in the context of my flickering candle analogy, I would say the following about remote viewing: "Never mind making a candle flicker. They never even saw the room it was in."
A comment on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
"...materialistic science has no access to the metaphysical"
Exactly, I can't agree more. That's why metaphysical stuff isn't science.
Do you really want to live in a world where "ghost science", "seance communication" and "philosophical quarreling" become part of engineering, mathematics, and physics? Didn't we emerge from that nonsense 150 years ago (finally)?
I would also like to chime in that metaphysical stuff isn't science by default. It isn't science because over the last 150 years or so it has been disproven, time and time again. Every single time that there has been any attempt made to make it part of science through serious study, the studies have come back as either: (1) Completely disproven, (2) inconclusive, or (3) found to be a pack of lies (seriously!?).
I still maintain my original statements: Show me how philosophy is going to make science less biased. Keep in mind, that the *entire* scientific process is a process designed (on purpose) to reduce bias in the first place.
I also noticed that you're playing on dissimilar words, in a fashion that is not unlike when creationists confuse species with "kind" (and move the target around to suit their needs during discussions of the subject - usually related to macro evolution).
Philosophy has not ever discovered a thing. Physics, math, etc, didn't bloom when some philosopher named a course of logic after himself. They were already in place. Occums razor was in place for thousands of years before it was named (basic inference, anyone?) AND used by everyone!!! And yes, so was Newton's "gravity".... HOWEVER: Newton's gravitational constant and formulas were invented by Newton, not by philosphy, or the naming of the phrase "Newton's laws". You're confusing science with philosophy on the grounds of who named what and when - and getting it wrong in the process.
You're making the mistake of putting eggs with flowers, and calling them both food.
A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
"OF COURSE science is biased! Are you saying that the many historical examples of scientific wrong thinking that led to persecutions, executions, and exile of scientists all over the world whose ideas were thought to be rubbish at the time, but later shown to be correct, are no evidence of bias?"
You're making the mistake of turning history inside out. It was emergent science - REAL science, not dogmatic belief in religious junk - which was persecuted, not the other way around.
How many astronomers were persecuted as heretics for publishing their observations?
How many scientists were discredited for having the wrong race, religion, or family history?
You, and others like you, seem to prefer to point to the obviously flawed times in human history when there was no science, when there was no scientific method, and erroneously assign it the label of "science". Let me be clear on the following: Dogmatic beliefs are not science. Even when they called themselves "scientists". The same is true today: Creationism isn't science either (clearly not, when it run by mostly imprisoned ex-school teachers and dentists, making demonstrable perverse claims about the nature of everything including gravity).
Why was the earth ever considered flat? Did anyone actually measure this, or did they just stand in one spot and proclaim it so? Even in earliest antiquity, several mathematicians and astronomers (astrologers?) believed that the sun was at the center of the universe. It took us another 2,000 years of political and religious strife to be able to say this publicly without fear of a fiery death.
Again (and again) I ask this: Please show how philosophy isn't biased, or that the scientific community is biased. I believe you're wrong on both counts, and have failed to show any bias in science.
Lack of proof isn't proof. I keep saying this, time and again. Please make your case.
A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
"The scientific establishment has changed its paradigm many times, and will do so many times in the future. But more than that, it holds contradictory paradigms simultaneously (Theists vs Atheists)."
Can you name any scientific papers (outside of creationist junk science), which mentions any kind of deity as part of the objective statements made by the paper? Don't you think that any paper, during the process of review and publishing, would immediately be rejected for having religious connections of any kind?
As far as I know, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the presence of any deity, past, present, or future, including any ancient sun Gods, cults, or emergent deities, in all of human history. In fact, when "scientists" (I call them "unbelievers", as they often require a complete suspension of naturalistic beliefs, hence "unbelievable" acts of nature) try to find such proof, they *always* end up subverting even the most basic tenets of science (such as truth, repeatability, logic, etc).
Please notice that I have emphasized "always". In all my travels I have never come across any writing, both by professionals and laymen, which passed even the most basic tests. And neither have I ever heard of anyone else, any of my colleagues, friends, etc, finding such work.
Lastly, I would like to chime in on the comment for "paradigm change". Technology isn't a paradigm. Technology is emergent, and as it evolves (snicker) it will change our understanding and our interaction with our natural world. The scientific method is a reduction in bias. Philosophy is a concentration of bias. Science will not be enhanced by any injection, small or large, of philosophy, regardless if it is "pure" philosophy, religious dogma, or anything else.
Science is an industrial methodology. It isn't basket weaving or painting.
A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
"Scientists can't, for example, reliably test whether they are dreaming or not. "
The key word you've injected into your reply is "reliable". In any other part of science, this would refer to error, or perhaps distortion in datapoints. It is still testable, although perhaps not to engineering precision. Your example is a non-example. The fact is that REM sleep and various forms of other sleep and dreaming are well studied subjects. Heck, we even know that lack of sleep (and dreaming) ultimately will kill a person (Jiang Xiaoshan).
"They also can't test whether they're in a simulation that is designed specifically to thwart any test of its existence."
I honestly don't see how you can possibly not call that statement metaphysical. It's basically religious dogma dressed up to look like another episode of "The Matrix", with two parts of conspiracy theory and one part "eye of newt" thrown in for good measure.
Science is about the real, the measurable, the repeatable, and the testable. It is not about thought experiments and movie plots.
I keep reading, time and again from you and others, how philosophy "invented" this and that. All false. At best, philosophy has given names to particular logical constructs. It hasn't invented a single candle flicker. Even the example of Occam's razor (someone else's mention) is far fetched to be included in this discussion. The razor is self-evident. Philosophy didn't create it so that we now have access to its principles! It was there all along. We don't need to invent lavish fairy tales to explain things or make the world into a giant Goldberg machine. The simplest explanations are usually the ones that work. Just ask Fox news (LOL).
A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
Lewis, which part of science is "intestable" (Not legally permitted to make a will, as by reason of being under the age of majority or mentally incompetent.)? I think you may have meant: "Untestable". And my reply is as follows, please read slowly at your own peril:
If something is untestable, it is not science.
A comment on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
"Are you asserting the idea that anyone who proposes the idea that intelligent design is responsible for the creation of the universe is promoting "drivel"?"
Yes, I am. There is exactly zero ("0") scientific evidence for any of the mythological beliefs you hold. To put your statements in further context, I could just as easily make up stories about our entire existence being a computer simulation, a dream, or perhaps we are captives of an alien race right now. I could then expand on this by calling 9-11 an instance of alien intervention, all of science a conspiracy, and our current government a puppet entity to alien influence.
Using the same criteria as you have mentioned, all of these (and many, many more) scenarios are all equally true.
Lack of evidence is not evidence. Pointing to science from more than 200 years ago, i.e. pre-darwinian science, and then calling religious dogma of that time which suppressed scientific understanding isn't science either.
Your entire perspective is based on one fallacy after another, and it is deeply troubling that you don't seem to understand, or know, basic scientific methodology. The scientific method is a reduction of bias. It boils down to this one thing, nothing more or less. How can you, in the same breath as when you're trying to shove your religious dogma into this discussion, make the assertion that philosophy will reduce bias? You're clearly giving philosophy too much credit.
The burden is on your shoulders to show how philosophy would go about this. Namely, the steps involved would be:
(1) Show a philosophy that is not based on bias
(2) Show how that philosophy can reduce bias in other biased systems
(3) Show how the scientific method is biased
(4) Prove that application of (2) onto (3) will reduce bias in (3)
Until then, the entire concept of adding philosophical discussion into the scientific method is facetious.
A reply on Conversation: Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence?
You mention Copernicus, as if he's the posterchild for philosophical science. From my perspective, he's the posterchild for non-philosophical science.
He didn't prevail because he was a nice guy, had a great haircut, knew someone's sister -twice removed-, or wielded some kind of magical power of persuasion over the masses.
He prevailed because others measured the same things he measured, saw the same things he saw, and calculated the same conclusions he calculated. DESPITE what certain "philosophies" (read: Religious dogma of his time) were saying.
Just look at the title of what was used to try to undermine Copernicus' assertions: "On the Truth of Sacred Scripture", written by Giovanni Maria Tolosani.
Again, please consider the "industrial methodology" of science versus the -necessarily self-inflicted- dogmatic approach of philosophy. If there is a better approach in science, it will be adopted. That's not a philosophy. It's a practical truth. Just like somewhere along the way there was a move away from throwing books onto pyres (alongside their writers) rather than today's approach where we just make fun of them on Amazon.com.
I would also argue that "philosophy" has always followed from things that already took place. Nowhere in history has a philosophy created anything. If anything, existing processes, methods, and even thought processes gave rise to new NAMES of philosophies, perhaps. In a sense you could capture the essence of what philosophy is by saying that it "defines the underlying principles with important sounding words", but that's pretty much where it ends.
I keep asking for the same thing, over and over - where/how would philosophy enhance science? And, one more step down the slippery slope - if you did manage to inject it, why stop there? Why not religion next? Or politics? Or ... whatever? Wouldn't they also serve to reduce "bias" on the same level? Do you see my problem with this now? I hope I made it clear.