>But people who didn't study linguistics can still be impressed by Plato, and then quote him to impress others.
Same way people that studied science X (including linguistics and CS), but are philosophically naive, can have a coarsed-grained view of very nuanced situations, and adhere to naive assumptions...
As an American philosopher noted, "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing".
This is true for a scientist with expertise in whatever X.
Philosophy and epistemology (along with history and art) are ways to not be a simpleton with a narrow field of view who can't put together two coherent sentences outside their field (and doesn't even understand the second and third order implications of what he studies, its possible societal impact, its relevance and so on), but to get a wider picture.
Whch is not the same as "impressing others", except in the sense that intelligence and education do impress others sometimes...
Same way people that studied science X (including linguistics and CS), but are philosophically naive, can have a coarsed-grained view of very nuanced situations, and adhere to naive assumptions...
As an American philosopher noted, "An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing".
This is true for a scientist with expertise in whatever X.
Philosophy and epistemology (along with history and art) are ways to not be a simpleton with a narrow field of view who can't put together two coherent sentences outside their field (and doesn't even understand the second and third order implications of what he studies, its possible societal impact, its relevance and so on), but to get a wider picture.
Whch is not the same as "impressing others", except in the sense that intelligence and education do impress others sometimes...