What's a pure philosopher? Are Frege and Decartes not philosophers because they also did math? Does Alan Turing count? What about Popper and Kuhn? Are they philosophy enough for the philosopher club? Where, when, how and by whom do you think the concept of 'empirical science' was derived?
To be clear, everyone, including scientists, do philosophy every single day. You don't think Darwin did some philosophy in on the origin of species?
What is a pure philosopher??!? I'm not arguing the specificity of the question, I'm saying that question is nonsensical.
One group can and does test hypotheses, the other does not
Like I could literally go forever because most breakthrough practitioners started as philosophers- note the PhDs
“Doctor of Philosophy”
I mean JFC people this is basic science history
But you know I’m sure that won’t satisfy somebody who doesn’t even understand the epistemological distinction between what a philosopher is or does and what somebody who’s actually doing experimental testing that turns into something great is because the distinction is basically zero
Please provide a link or otherwise reference to this scoreboard
Unless you were writing metaphorically in which case you’ll need to write a lot more to describe it
edit: I think often theoreticians are unable to appreciate the constraints or nuance of actually "doing it" so frequently their "solutions" don't survive impact with reality
The “platonic wheel” is not a concern for someone trying to make money selling tires - but nor do those tires by being a function of successful commerce describe a “platonic wheel”
Perhaps the platonic wheel is in some intersectional saddle point between theory and practice but to say that only that which is commonly adopted has measure ignores the philosophical genesis that precedes and impregnates the production process.
However, I believe you’re over indexing on this in that across pretty much every industry that I’ve ever dealt with, practitioners are notoriously terrible at implementing anything close to theoretical optimization
Why? simply because the organization does not incentivize that, so if we were then to use this as our standard, then we would be betraying what is effectively the idealized implementation of some epistemological process
instead you’re simply lowering the bar on what is a more correct way to do things
I think this is one of the few places where from a philosophical perspective The categorical imperative is actually very helpful - that is to say a medical professionals epistemology should be the highest standard and all other standards of rationality or let’s say decision-making should strive for
In short, much like practitioners need to keep the philosophers grounded , philosophers need to keep practitioners from lowering the bar on the epistemological robustness