do any of my followers recognize the philosopher whose picture is being used as this blog’s avatar?
If they [Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson] really believe this [that philosophy is a waste of time] they should stop indulging in low-grade philosophy in their own writings. You cannot do physics or cosmology without an assumed philosophical basis. You can choose not to think about that basis: it will still be there as an unexamined foundation of what you do. The fact you are unwilling to examine the philosophical foundations of what you do does not mean those foundations are not there; it just means they are unexamined.
Actually philosophical speculations have led to a great deal of good science. Einstein’s musings on Mach’s principle played a key role in developing general relativity. Einstein’s debate with Bohr and the EPR paper have led to a great deal of good physics testing the foundations of quantum physics. My own examination of the Copernican principle in cosmology has led to exploration of some great observational tests of spatial homogeneity that have turned an untested philosophical assumption into a testable—and indeed tested—scientific hypothesis. That’s good science."
Hello to you too!
I’m not sure what I wish I had read while in school because even back then I was reading papers here and there in my own time for fun. My advice would be to begin, if you haven’t already, to read articles that you have access to from your school’s online databases like Academic Search Complete and JSTOR. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy can never hurt either.
For professional outlets, I’m aware of a few that obviously combine the two: philosophy of cognitive science, philosophy of psychology, cognitive neuroscience, philosophy of mind/consciousness. These are mostly academic options, and there are certainly other fields you can go into, but they’re the ones that come to mind.