It's a weird beef between science and philosophy. It doesn't really make all that much sense. Philosophers arent on one team versus the scientists. If you read any philosopher, they'll vehemently contradict other (prior or contemporary) philosophers, passionately arguing for their view of things.
Its a sort of elitism and inferiority complex.
The fact that Feynman was working through some "naive" positivist worldview and yet achieved such success just rubs it in more that a talented scientist needs philosophers about as much as a bird needs ornithologists to know how to build its nest.
When talent, curiosity and integrity come together in this way, it doesn't need some philosophers musings and rulebooks to do great.
> The fact that Feynman was working through some "naive" positivist worldview and yet achieved such success just rubs it in more that a talented scientist needs philosophers about as much as a bird needs ornithologists to know how to build its nest.
Your snark is unwarranted and your post is vague. State your point clearly. I don't know how Feynman (and his beef with the philosophy of science) is connected to global warming "coming along" or not.
Its a sort of elitism and inferiority complex.
The fact that Feynman was working through some "naive" positivist worldview and yet achieved such success just rubs it in more that a talented scientist needs philosophers about as much as a bird needs ornithologists to know how to build its nest.
When talent, curiosity and integrity come together in this way, it doesn't need some philosophers musings and rulebooks to do great.