I start from the normative premise that philosophy should be a truth-oriented enterprise and aim at knowledge. Not all philosophers share this goal. Some may be more interested in the kind of philosophy that is closer to art in its aims. But many philosophers, especially those in the analytic tradition, seem to be interested in getting the fundamental questions in epistemology, metaphysics and ethics right. They are the intended audience of this blog.
I am also a defender of strong naturalism or scientism. I take science, with its broad set of evolving methods, to be the only enterprise that reliably succeeds in gaining deep and interesting knowledge (including knowledge about knowledge itself). The intuitions and a priori conceptual analyses of philosophers, on the other hand, are not reliable at all, and often lead to false beliefs. This is why all the branches of philosophy that aim at knowledge should be naturalized.
What is left for truth-oriented philosophers to do then? Should they just quit their jobs and become scientists? No, or at least not yet. I see four main tasks for a naturalistic philosopher.
The first and most important task is thinking about how to naturalize philosophy. After this task is finished, the naturalized branches of philosophy get handed over to scientists. Of course, scientists often know better than philosophers how to turn something into actual science and fundable research projects. Philosophers will thus need the scientists' help in accomplishing this task.
Since there will be plenty of non-naturalistic philosophy around for a long time, the second task is arguing against philosophers who oppose naturalism or who don't take naturalism seriously enough.
The third task is taking part in long-lasting controversies within science and about science. Not all disputes can be solved empirically. Some are more conceptual in nature and based on misunderstandings, bad arguments, or people talking past each other. For example, proponents of intelligent design won't be converted or shown to be fools by just pointing at the data. Something more is needed. I do not mean that philosophers should provide intuition-based conceptual analyses for scientists or interpret science in terms of grand philosophical pictures. That would be profoundly un-scientific. Still, sometimes a dispute can be resolved just by clear thinking and reasoning. This is something that scientists can do for themselves, often more authoritatively than philosophers. But perhaps in some cases a philosopher who knows a lot about science can be of help.
The fourth task is unearthing unwarranted philosophical assumptions within science. They are often irrelevant for scientific practice, but sometimes they can guide research in bad directions. Instead of replacing them with other unwarranted philosophical assumptions, naturalistic philosophers should aim at removing as much excessive philosophical baggage from science as possible. Sometimes it takes a philosopher to recognize philosophy.
