I'd go with that as a basic working definition for now.
Okay so then you agree that science is inherently amoral.... what are you then arguing in your next post? An inherent ethic/morality exists within science?
Yes, it's effectively a belief system, rather like religion. IOW, it's a bit like science without the "reality check". If you claim the earth is square in science, someone can ruin your day by showing you it's round. If you claim the earth is square as part of your preferred abstract ramblings, then as long as you're consistent nobody can use abstract methods to shoot you down. I suppose that's why philosophy is part of 3/ in this image.
(Clicky for piccy!)Anyone can make any image
Philosophy incorporates theology, but it is not theology... I would think you would know that, os
Philosophy is the study of meanings/values.... that includes everything from various theologies to nihilisms and everything in between.
As for reality checks, well, like I said in my post:
Too much philosophy with no science --> Cartesian dualism, Existential crises, Analysis paralysis, cultural relativism, privileging the few over the many
You are stuck on me saying that science needs philosophy (ethics in particular) for balance, but you seem to be ignoring all the ways I critique philosophy that is not grounded in science.
Could do with a bit more IMHO. F'rinstance, the awesome wankfest of "How do we know that we know that we think we know what we know then?" is a what and how question, not a why question. So you'd have to include what and how under philosophy, or you would have to take those questions away from philosophy and give them to the scientists (which would make teh philostophers really grumpy).
Well those philosophers are idjuts, IMO, rather like those scientists who would like to throw out philosophy altogether; they have decided on one or the other as Teh Saviour, and think the other side is so far away and never the twain shall meet. Both pretty polarized and ultimately stupid positions, IMO.
Epistemology is a particular study that may have its place, but it is probably the most confusing (and thus annoying) of all studies. It's not the part of philosophy that particularly interests me personally, precisely because it is so bloody futile. When I see scientists railing against philosophy, I realize it is epistemology that is most annoying to them, but that is not all of philosophy. That is rooted in a search for "objectivity". I do not believe in moral/philosophical objectivity at all, so it is pointless to go and fuckin' look for it, IMO. But to throw out all philosophy would also mean throwing out the study of ethics/morality as those are also not "checkable" by science, and that is where I disagree with those who'd like to see philosophy gone.
Topic: z0mg philololosophy s0xerz