I used would instead of can to picture a "perfect" version of both, but maybe it wasn't obvious. Because you could have an academic philosopher who isn't wise simply because he isn't good at what he is doing, then a lot of people would be wiser and the question isn't interesting. My question is more about which method seems to lead to the wisest knowledge.

I guess it means no then, thanks for spamming this topic.

I wasn't trying to make a point yet, you reacted to a part of my post which said philosophical theories don't try to have scientific grounds but mostly have philosophical grounds, then you said it does, then I asked for an example, as simple as that. Do you have one or not ?

Okay, can you give me an example of one of their theories that have scientific grounds ?

I used the word "independent" because it's the best adjective I could find to describe the profile I wanted to talk about, but of course it's impossible to be completely independent of social norms etc, we're humans... If that makes it easier to understand my point, imagine a person who has access to everything but philosophy, and doesn't have a clue about their method, etc. Imagine they're trying to paint a picture of reality, they're going to have to use other resources, which could be by other disciplines (science, psychology,...) or their personal experience by exploring nature, cultures, talking to a lot of people,... Do you think their theories would be wiser than those from philosophy ?

And what you're trying to say is that science is more dependent of social norms etc than philosophy ? Because in that case I totally disagree, the fact that scientific theories keeps being test by experiments is, in my opinion, a more objective window to the world then the endless debates of philosophers which are based on other debates, which are based on other debates and on and on where no one really knows where a theory comes from except from pieces of logic and imagination.



Well philosophy of science mostly studies science itself, the aim isn't to come up with theories that have scientific grounds. And analytic philosophy uses a few concept of formal logic but it certainly doesn't try to gather data from science as grounds for their theories. At least not that I know of, if you know a branch of those which focuses on what I just explained, please tell me.

Nice ! So what kind of philosophy helped you with that self control ? Was that something you read or something you learned over time by yourself ?

You mentioned rationality, but to me, you could be rational without caring about philosophy at all.

What's a perfect definition anyway ? We assigned words to concepts and things we see and experience, and these words either represent a category of these or the elements themselves. So we can argue whether an object fits a category, or whether we should expand the category so that the object fits, but arguing if a definition is perfect ? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Linguistic isn't science, it's not meant to understand the world but to make categories of elements in the world so that we can communicate. And since that's the goal, why should we define every word with other words if everyone already understand the concept (eg the word "nothing"). You can teach a child the concept of nothing with toys, and then tell them "this is called nothing". It can't be thought with words, so why should we try to define it "rigorously" ?