Q&A: Scientist-Philosopher
Scientist-Philosopher
Question
Just making sure there isn’t some depth here that I, in my foolishness, missed.
Ido Landau wrote about Noam Chomsky that he is a "scientist-philosopher."
Quote:
"This hyphen—which connects rather than separates—insists on discussing the world of facts from a philosophical point of view, and insists on subjecting the philosophical discussion to the burden of the known facts."
Discussing facts from a philosophical point of view sounds to me like a great and essential idea. But what is the meaning of subjecting the philosophical discussion to the burden of the facts? That you’re not willing to discuss anything except scientific facts? Maybe empiricism? (As I understand it, Chomsky is really not an empiricist.)
So either it means nothing, or it means empiricism, God forbid. Does the Rabbi identify some other idea here that is actually worth something?
Answer
I don’t know who Ido Landau is, and I’m also not sufficiently familiar with Chomsky. But the picture you describe is too dichotomous. There is a connection to facts that is not necessarily empiricism in its strict sense. Moreover, even strict empiricism is not really observation alone. Science is full of a priori assumptions.