"I think philosophers can do things akin to theoretical scientists, in that, having read about empirical data, they too can think of what hypotheses and theories might account for that data. So there's a continuity between philosophy and science in that way"

Robert Nozick here highlights the dynamic relationship between philosophy and science, suggesting the boundaries are more porous than often assumed. Philosophers, like theoretical scientists, engage deeply with empirical information gathered by researchers. Through critical reflection and imaginative reasoning, they develop hypotheses and theoretical frameworks, forging explanations that could make sense of the observed phenomena. Nozick emphasizes that philosophical activity isn't restricted to pure abstraction or conceptual analysis; rather, it involves grappling with real-world findings, attempting to synthesize them, challenge them, or push them toward new horizons of understanding.

This process places philosophy alongside science in the broader intellectual endeavor of making sense of reality. While scientists might focus on designing experiments, collecting data, and discovering regularities, philosophers often help articulate the foundational assumptions, explore implications, or address areas where existing explanations fall short. For example, where cognitive neuroscience uncovers surprising results about perception and consciousness, philosophers rigorously inquire into what these results mean for our concepts of mind and self. Rather than operating from an ivory tower detached from empirical matters, philosophers become partners in the quest for coherent, comprehensive models of the world.

Nozick’s perspective also challenges rigid distinctions between disciplines. The continuity he notes arises not from superficial similarities, but from their shared commitment to critical inquiry and theoretical advance. Philosophy doesn't merely comment on the sciences from afar or retrospectively clarify their concepts. Instead, as philosophers reflect on accumulating evidence, they propose ways to systematize it, recognize emerging patterns, and imagine new explanations. This symbiosis drives progress in both domains; philosophers inspire scientists to ask broader, sharper questions, while scientific discoveries in turn challenge and invigorate philosophical thought.

Ultimately, Nozick points to a landscape of intellectual exchange, with philosophy and science entwined in mutual support, each enriching the other’s practice, scope, and ambition in the ongoing attempt to understand the complexities of existence.