Studying the history of the philosophy of science has turned out to be more interesting than I expected, but also almost completely useless. It doesn’t help to explain Descartes thought experiments on epistemology to someone who has decided Trump is fixing the world. It does make for interesting ways to pass the time however.
I was sitting in the doctor’s office today, waiting, and I heard through the wall, “this is going to hurt a little”, followed by a blood curdling scream, then, “I haven’t done anything yet.” The child was just old enough to negotiate the situation, although prolific use of crying and screaming was her chief strategy and she had very few options. I wanted to go over and explain that she shouldn’t hit her friends, because pain is bad, but if it’s a doctor, then it’s okay. This wasn’t a moral dilemma, no drawings of trollies, really a pretty simple concept, but one that will take years for her to sort out. The doctor didn’t have much to offer except a “special” band-aid, but then that just became something else to want. Not sure if she thought the band-aid was magic, or that it just signaled the end of the torture.
I think it was Steve Martin, though I may be wrong, who had a bit about what an alien would think if the first thing they saw Earthlings doing was a dentist doing a root canal. It would very likely look indistinguishable from torture, though of course there are important differences.
Medicine is definitely weird in lots of ways, from the suspension of normal body space conventions to the willing submission to discomfort for a usually delayed good. As a vet, I have a similar work context to pediatricians in that my patients can’t give informed consent, and their discomfort can’t be easily mitigated by improving their understanding of the reasons for it, so the owner and I end up making treatment decisions on behalf of the patient over their objections.
I don’t agree that history and philosophy of science are useless subjects, though. For scientists and clinicians, they are helpful in avoiding pitfalls in clinical decision making that our natural cognitive tendencies lead us into. For patients I think they may be helpful in setting appropriate expectations for what medicine can and cannot do for them. Epistemology, in particular, is useful if you learn about it an understand its implications before you’ve fully committed to an anti/pseudoscientific set of beliefs. Once you’ve gone a few steps down that road, though, it’s a steep climb back up.
I don’t agree that history and philosophy of science are useless subjects, though.
I guess I meant more at the daily, personal level. It's foundational to understanding who we are and how we got here and having a basis for our laws and our culture. But those things are considered common sense, despite good sense not being common at all. It's that "water we swim in" kind of thing. If you try to point it out and talk about it, people look at you funny.
If it’s the “water we swim in” then maybe it’s unnecessary to study it further. Do you have to study cardiology in order for your cardiovascular system to work properly? Of course not.
If it’s the “water we swim in” then maybe it’s unnecessary to study it further. Do you have to study cardiology in order for your cardiovascular system to work properly? Of course not.
Yeah, there's always that one guy. Maybe you haven't heard that analogy before.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/sep/20/fiction
What is the difference? Foster says we ought to be more aware of our unconscious behavior in order to be more free or something, which seems to be what you’re saying. I disagree.