Stephen asked:

What skills are necessary to be a good scientist?

What skills are necessary to be a good philosopher?

—And in what way do they differ?

I have often wondered about this. I have heard that philosophy is the best subject for training people
to think — yet some philosophy students struggle with 'scientific' subjects.

I would also like to know how a student used to scientific subjects (as I am) can do good philosophy.

Could the rigorous way of thinking adopted in scientific studies be used to enhance a student's
philosophy study (and perhaps help in finding more 'concrete' answers), or is this more likely to be a
hindrance?

This question is not so much about whether philosophy could be made more "scientific", as to
whether a so-called "scientific mind" could be an advantage in philosophy (in contrast to a typical
mind of arts students), in areas other than pure formal logic at least.

===========

For natural sciences (exact sciences) I would say the most important criteria are curiosity,
imagination, accuracy, keeping an open mind and a sense of humour: You need to want to find out
about things, to understand how things work (curiosity). You need to be able to form a hypothesis (a
model, possible explanation) based on the facts available to you (imagination). You need to plan and
execute and document your experiments carefully to avoid error and to allow others to duplicate and
check your work (accuracy). You need to be open to facts that do not fit your hypothesis and
alternative explanations (open mind). You must not fall too much in love with your hypothesis, if it
after careful examination does not fit the facts, revise the hypothesis or chuck it out, do not throw out
the facts (if they are facts) — do not take yourself to seriously (that's where the sense of humour
comes in). Another way of putting it — you need an idea to start with but from there on it is lots of
hard work. Also you need to know what others have worked out before to avoid making the same
mistakes or re-inventing the wheel. And if you are truly a great scientist you definitely have to be able
to think outside the box and be able to challenge traditionally accepted "truths".

In my view the same applies for philosophy.

The major difference is that natural sciences deals with the physical world only, whereas philosophy
can deal with ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics etc. Historically one aspect after the other has
"dropped" out of philosophy into "science", in my view it is only a question of time until there will be a
"firm" basis for medicine, psychology and sociology.... so that gap is gradually diminishing. However
every science has it's philosophy i.e. a theory about epistemology and methodology applicable in that
science, this is a necessary and important part of science and will remain. (On average scientists that
are not working on cutting edge topics in their field pretty much accept this stuff for granted and do
not think about it a lot, but it is really important that someone does: Example: Why is infalsifiability a
bad thing? (Popper — look it up). A difference is certainly that the philosopher does not conduct real
experiments but "thought experiments", this means you have to be extra careful.

Just start with your own question i.e. what intrigues you. How do you define "skill"? What does it
mean to have a skill? Is it a talent you are born with, an inclination enhanced by training, acquired? Is
it knowledge? What does "good" mean? good for whom, in what respect? Why do you think some
philosophy students struggle with science? (Why do some science students struggle with
philosophy?) What is according to you "a typical mind of arts students"? What is it to be "a
philosopher"?

Helene Dumitriu