Last week I gave a paper at a conference, "Is Philosophy Useful for Science, and/or Vice Versa?," in celebration of the first year of the Doctor of Science program in Mathematics, Philosophy and Physics (MPP) at Chapman University, Schmid College of Science and Technology. It was based
Yes, I think this is exactly right. It's clear that, at different times over the last couple of centuries, different sciences have been thought to be 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 in a non-reductionist sense. Chemistry, for example. It's only, IMHO, with the success of the atomic theory c. the turn of the century --1900-- that the reduction-to-physics conceptual model took real grip. At least that's the way I read history.
Yes, I think this is exactly right. It's clear that, at different times over the last couple of centuries, different sciences have been thought to be 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 in a non-reductionist sense. Chemistry, for example. It's only, IMHO, with the success of the atomic theory c. the turn of the century --1900-- that the reduction-to-physics conceptual model took real grip. At least that's the way I read history.