Abstract

Contemporary philosophers tend to examine basic philosophical issues as though scientific evidence were irrelevant to these issues. they rely on everyday information and on the language in which such information is stated. the wisdom of such procedure is questionable, especially in the light that scientists are taking on themselves to consider substantive philosophical issues. since they are not trained to handle philosophical issues, and most philosophers disregard scientific findings, we now get either well-founded but naive, or poorly founded but expert, philosophies. the rift between the sciences and the humanities is with us, and it behooves contemporary philosophers to overcome it in their field and analyze empirically founded information rather than merely each others' pronouncements or the language of everyday discourse