I agree that Pragmatism is also fairly common in the sciences. But I don't considered Pragmatism to be a philosophy, it is a rejection of principles on principle so it is a dead-end. What is "shut-up and calculate" if not Pragmatism which has dominated physics for 100 years and has run its course. By holding philosophy in disdain and not studying it the physicists leave themselves vulnerable (due to ignorance) and absorb the bad philosophies I mentioned by osmosis.
> But I don't considered Pragmatism to be a philosophy, it is a rejection of principles on principle so it is a dead-end.
Huh? Philosophy books all list Pragmatism as a major philosophy, and it is far more elaborate than that. "Shut up and calculate" is not at all what the philosophies of Dewey, Peirce and James are about, it is far more elaborate.
>By holding philosophy in disdain and not studying it the physicists leave themselves vulnerable (due to ignorance) and absorb the bad philosophies I mentioned by osmosis.
I am referring to how they actually practice science, not their possibly quite inaccurate philosophical explanations of what they are doing. I am sure you are familiar with the phenomenon of someone loudly claiming they follow a certain set of principles, but then when you observe them you see they are actually doing something quite different.
What I am saying is that if you observe how scientists actually do science, it fits the philosophical principles of Pragmatism, whether the scientists realize it or not. And I am saying that as someone with a background in both the sciences and philosophy.
