Oh dear. Well serpent, allow me to correct your mistakes.
This was your first assertion:
Philosophy: To know if anything has any meaning you have to first spend lots of time arguing about the meaning of meaning
.
This implies that arguing over the "meaning of meaning" is a necessary condition on philosophical progress. I rebutted this by way of several counterexamples. Thus far, you've managed to address a grand total of zero of my claims. You then proceeded to stick your fingers in your ears and repeat a slightly more coherent version of your original misrepresentation of Philosophy:
most philosophical arguments boil down to semantic arguments over definitions
And this shows that you don't really don't have a clue. If I'm mistaken then please do demonstrate otherwise. It's simply not the case that most philosophical arguments boil down to semantic arguments over definitions. I'd be interested to see what evidence you have for this claim, serpent. You've inadvertently made a statistical claim about the entire nature of a discipline. So please, do go ahead and show how >50% of philosophical arguments are petty squabbling over definitions. Here, I'll even help you out:
http://philpapers.org/. Philpapers is pretty representative of what goes on in Philosophy so if you can show that the majority of the arguments on that site boil down to petty semantics then I'll concede your claim.
Philosophy is typically not so much concerned with definitions, but with concepts. Philosophers want to get clear on the precise nature of concepts like "knowledge," or "justice," or "intention." And it's stupid to think that these issues are just petty squabbling over mere "definitions." I mean, here's an analogy: "physics is just petty semantics. 'Does the Higgs boson exist?' What a stupid semantic question. It's all just a matter of how you define it. If you define the Higgs boson as the city of Atlantis then it doesn't exist. If you define it some other way, maybe it does!" Obviously, this is stupid. Physicists are investigating the possible existence of something with certain properties. As they learn more, they can get more precise on how such a thing behaves, and what properties it has. Similarly, philosophers are investigating the nature of certain concepts. As they do the work, they get more clear on the concept. So, yeah, "semantics" matters -- that is, getting clear on meaning is important. But to dismiss the field as "just semantics" misses what they are doing entirely.
I know that Philosophy bashing is a current fad, but it's an intellectually vacuous one. If the logical positivists couldn't relegate the importance of Philosophy then you'll have to excuse me for thinking that serpentofeden can't either.
I'd suggest that you read some actual Philosophy. But if you wish to continue embarrassing yourself then I'd be happy to entertain you.
Topic: Physicists and Philosophers