Why not be a scientist?
New posts will be forthcoming tomorrow, once I’ve gotten settled back into town from a weekend away. The mountains of New York are a refreshing change of pace from Chicago. While I was in the Aidironacks at a wedding, I met a scientist who asked me why I did philosophy (of mind and religion), and what I hoped to do with it. The implication was that it wasn’t very practical, that science is better at answering questions, etc. (He had gone from being interested in psychology to philosophy to neuroscience, so naturally he had a bit of a bias, viewing his particular path as a normative evolution.)
I’ve been pondering that question, especially since it does seem like science is so successful at solving puzzles, providing cures for diseases, explanations for the world’s workings, etc. Why not (aside from the practical answer of education and money) redirect my career to become a neuroscientist?
The answer will have to wait until I’ve got time, but I thought I’d toss it out there, in case anyone has their own biases.