From a practical standpoint, philosophy requires clear, logical thinking. A person who has a degree in philosophy has therefore shown an ability to think — a useful skill in a world that too often doesn’t seem to do much of it.Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)
Remarkably, Lehewych actually notices a key reason many are skeptical of science:
Consider public health messaging during the pandemic, which consisted of a pattern of revelation and back-peddling. Worse, this pattern wasn’t even cohesive among scientists and medical experts: different experts in the same fields were simultaneously saying things about the pandemic that were contradictory and inconsistent. This only served to confuse the public and aggravate hyperpartisanship.
Philosophy, as an activity, can potentially mitigate these deleterious effects. Earning a philosophy degree entails filtering convoluted ideas into plain language. This skill can and ought to be used to aid scientists in pursuing a more scientifically informed publicDaniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)
Lehewych interweaves these thoughts with discussion of the anti-philosophy views of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He suggests that scientists study philosophy so as to avoid sounding like “sanctimonious know-it-alls.”
Maybe. Of course, it would also help to be right more often, as that would at least lead to more consistent messaging.
You may also wish to read: At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.