Philosophy is Dead.

I'm not sure what to make out of this, but I'm going to present some of the arguments I had already prepared, although I had the intention of providing more to support my case. MY CASEArguments that say that "philosophy is useless" usually stem from an ignorance of the importance of philosophy in our current scientific research, and the fact that the philosophical foundations (which go beyond logic) are still being strengthened and evaluated in the academic world. This myth seems to be present in the writings of scientists who seem to have dogmatically adopted the reductionist, mechanistic paradigm, ignoring the limitations of their current paradigm which are expressed by many academic publications. Wittgenstein's Philosophy, Reductionism and NeuroscienceIn their book "Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience," the neuroscientist Max Bennett and the philosopher Peter Hacker use Wittgenstein's principles of non-reductionism to avoid the vacuity of neuroscientific reductionism and reach a "less wrong" understanding of neuroscience[1]. This work has been considered one of the greatest publications in neuroscience. According to the highly-renowned academic, G. H. Von Wright, "[It] will certainly, for a long time to come, be the most important contribution to the mind-body problem which there is. " This is followed by the review of President of the British Academy, Sir Anthony Kenny, who calls the book remarkable and states that it will stimulate the controversy needed in neuroscience[2]. This is just one example of how philosophy is active and effective in dealing with the new problems that arise as we further investigate neuroscience and many other areas of knowledge. Philosophy, in this sense, is required as a methodology to deal with paradoxes and limitations that impede the progress in academia. As Friedrich Nietzsche once said, "As the circle of science grows larger, it touches paradox at more places. "Epistemological holism and the dogmas of empiricismOne of the greatest modern contributions to philosophy has been Quine's critique of empiricism. As Quine argues[3]:"My present suggestion is that it is nonsense, and the root of much nonsense, to speak of a linguistic component and a factual component in the truth of any individual statement. Taken collectively, science has its double dependence upon language and experience; but this duality is not significantly traceable into the statements of science taken one by one. Russell’s concept of definition in use was, as remarked, an advance over the impossible term-by-term empiricism of Locke and Hume. The statement, rather than the term, came with Russell to be recognized as the unit accountable to an empiricist critique. But what I am now urging is that even in taking the statement as a unit we have drawn our grid too finely. The unit of empirical significance is the whole of science. "In other words, Quine attempts to correct the basis of science, empiricism, and offers an alternative holistic theory which has been widely-adopted by modern philosophers. Provided that Quin's epistemological holism is plausible, such discovery is prone to revolutionize our modern science especially when it deals with principles such as the principle of uncertainty that deals directly with our human perception. Quine argues that science relies on both language and experience, and suffers from what he classifies as two dogmas of empiricism that are caused by the current epistemological reductionism. Therefore, his philosophy establishes a less dogmatic foundation for science. In summary, philosophy is a method to continuously strengthen the basic foundations of science to leave out dogmatic assumptions and inconsistencies. Philosophy as a lingual and corrective methodAccording to Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language[4]. " Based on this definition, philosophy is useful today and in the future because we are expected to continue using language, when language regulates and shapes our perceptions, knowledge and science and could therefore have an adverse effect on how certain matters are interpreted, stated, discussed or challenged in academical works. Therefore, philosophical methods that deal with linguistics are needed given that they provide philosophical hygiene for academia; logic alone is not enough. SUMMARYPhilosophy is not only active as other academic fields, but also immersed with the foundations of our knowledge and epistemology. Because of the failures of reductionism, an approach to holism ,or more or less an inclusionist middle-ground between both paradigms, is currently unwinding, so it is rather ignorant to ignore philosophy's achievements in the modern times plus the changing foundations of our current paradigm, which is not based on absolute knowledge but philosophies that can submerge and evolve, and say that philosophy is useless and science already knows perfectly how to figure out all that there is without any further assistance. CITATIONS[1] Wittgenstein meets Neuroscience. Axel Kohler. Human Nature Review 2003 Volume 3: 459-460. [2] Reviews from Amazon. com/Philosophical-Foundations-Neuroscience-M-Bennett/dp/140510838X,[3] Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism. W. V. Quine The Philosophical Review Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan. , 1951), pp. 20-43 Published by: Duke University Press. [4] Ludwig Wittgenstein. Philosophical Investigations, §§109, 309.