Thank you for the reminder. I was overly dismissive and I'm glad you called me out over it. To be more constructive though, I feel like the intersection of the sciences and philosophy now is purely driven by these kind of articles which seek to establish that in the past research ideas would borrow from concepts of philosophy. Globally education has shifted further and further from this view, and without articles like this, no living professional scientist would know Hume from Kant.

This declining relevance is true of other scientific works as well, but that is rarely touched upon. I suppose in some sense my comment expressed my annoyance that only philosophical roots are rediscovered every now and then.

> Einstein reports Hume's influence on him and says that without Hume it's possible he would never have come up with relativity. That's as solid evidence of a link as could exist.

I see what you're saying. If Einstein attributes his thinking to Hume's influence, nobody can deny it. That's true of admissions in a court of law, however, our understanding of how scientific ideas are generated lacks the same certainty. Personal reflection is no guarantee of insight into the formation of ideas.

Einstein's acknowledgement of Hume as an intellectual predecessor tells us he admires Hume. It doesn't tell us where Einstein's own thoughts came from. Our knowledge of neurology isn't advanced enough to draw that conclusion.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/there-is-no-such-...