I have a hunch that I can't confirm so I want opinions and insights on it.
First some relevant facts:
-
Philosophy has been separated from science. Nowadays, the era of physicists and mathematicians being also philosophers at the same time has ended and the modern average STEM student has hardly been taught any philosophy. In fact, some famous modern physicists have very poor opinion of philosophy.
-
The 20th century streak of breakthroughs in science, especially physics and engineering, has ended, and relatively little (in comparison) has come from some the 21st century's major research paths such as the search for dark matter/energy or for a theory of quantum gravity.
-
The time during which the first two facts of the list transitioned to their modern state, the 20th century, was a time during which the capitalist order was shaken and afraid, while socialist theories and philosophy was getting verified and confirmed to be correct in the real world.
My hypothesis is therefore the following:
As socialism's successes were starting to seriously challenge the bourgeois theories of capitalism, bourgeois academics started to see science graduates practicing and engaging with philosophy, particularly economics graduates, as a threat.
But they couldn't tell economics students and no others that they didn't need philosophy, not only would that look suspicious but the intersections between economics and other sciences would have come back around to bite them eventually.
So they took the decision to convince all science graduates that they didn't need philosophy, that it didn't matter if their hypothesis aren't grounded in reality as long as the math gives the right answer.
Capitalist academia essentially condemned philosophy to only be studied by language and/or art academics and actively started to paint philosophy as being separated from science.
What do you all think?
I don't think philosophy has been killed in stem, it is just that they are fed bits and pieces of it, without context of the whole, and in an incredibly purposeful way meant to counter revolutionary dialectical materialism.
For example, the engineering business philosophies driving global industry such as Deming or Shewart are ways of attempting to create a communistic ownership mindset within a company without actually giving ownership of production to the workers in order to have a better control over variability in production.
Deming straight up identifies poor management as being the primary cause of poor quality in products, and blamed basically all the things that we know are caused by capitalism without actually naming the beast itself. It is statistically driven Marxism without economic or class analysis, and in direct contrast to libertarian religious theory of what drives innovation. Of course, because of this, Deming is unable to come to a definitive reasoning as to why quality doesn't ever arise spontaneously in American corporations, but it is all there, it just needs to be put together with a spirit of revolution. But that doesn't usually happen because engineers in this country are still fairly well paid, move up quickly into management positions, and are also on the whole denser than tungsten when it comes to putting philosophical ideas together into a coherent whole.