though if i get more into the biology stuff there could be a good future in that. i've seen some of the research philosophers have done with summarising two fields of science... developmental psychology and behavioural genetics for example. they are two different fields. they ask different questions they use different research methods they use different statistical techniques. the proceed to talk past each other... while they both have something to say re how much certain traits are innate vs environmental (for example) their findings tend to contradict and the scientists from both fields persist in talking past each other and slinging mud (eugenics!!!!).

you can get some nice research funding (as a philosopher) to survey the fields in language that outsiders can understand and insiders can agree with. then you can get each side understanding the other sides point of view. you can try and carve a middle ground of advantages and disadvantages of both sides and try and reccomend a way forward... (especially when they are trying to work out a unified discipline as a meeting point between them).

that kind of thing looks kinda fun. great way to learn about various fields within science too... and a nice use of philosophy. a kind of diplomat to the sciences :-)

i like to do that with 'competing' psychology / psychiatry theories too :-)

i'd like to be a diplomat but sometimes i manage to %#@&#! everyone off instead. oops. need to get better with that.