No.
Philosophers should not be concerned about what could be without, at some real and abiding "level" (way), being MORE than concerned with what IS -- they should (actually: MUST) discover * the needed FACTS in the necessary CONTEXT.
Contexts including: environments/circumstances, our actual body and responsivenesses, standard behavior patterns, standard hierarchical development (especially, very much realistically understanding ontogeny), necessarily applicable biological principles, and better-known/understood existing FINDINGS.
Without this much science, there is no truly reasonable _OR_ helpful "philosophy" . [ And, without this, the philosophers enforce their "ideals" and their biases (unknown and unknown, explicit and implicit) and actually IMPEDE SCIENCE. I would submit it is not possible to sensibly and reasonably argue against this position, just stated. Give it a try if you must, but someone will always find a good way to defeat you. ]
* FOOTNOTE: Or, clearly KNOW and understand the key and important discoveries of others (i.e. scientists), and effectively be scientists themselves (striving to simply be the best at the science, just DOING SCIENCE WORK). IN short, THEY ARE TO BE SCIENTISTS, personally or through intimate study of the work _and_ findings of relevant scientists -- and trying to validly improve perspective or the organization of things.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biology