At the theology end of the spectrum, there appears to be zero evidence. It's all hearsay. The only way to philosophize, then, about theology, is to consider it, and all determinate subjects that have no evidential base, as ideas and speculation about ideas.

It seems to me as though the philosophy of ‘keep things as simple as possible, but not more so’ aims ultimately to destroy itself when adopted mechanically by the masses. Separation of church and state so to speak will disarm religious ideas, but cannot cleanse us of their residues. If we could organize a standard category of evidence for rationalizing philosophical hypotheses, what is there about philosophy based on evidence that would be extricable from centrism with regard to the theology, culture, socio-economic environment, class, of the individual doing the rationalizing?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Philosophy is used in science both in deciding on a topic for experiment, and then in the interpretation of the results. Hence why we have dozens of interpretations for QM.

Philosophy is the use of logic to interpret facts/data and create models that then can be further explored by experiment if the philosopher has the interest of scientists, or by the continuation of applying logic to modifying the model as new evidence comes in. Wait and see.

A real philosopher, like a real scientist makes guesses based on facts alone. Not only that, they don't try to sell guesses, no matter how educated, as fact. Too often hypothesis are sold as fact, like the dozen many worlds theories. All based on pretty and compelling math. But no mater how pretty and compelling your math is, it's not a fact until its varified by experiment. There's no such thing as mathematical certainty until the math's been proven to accurately predict the outcome of experiment. If it doesn't, it's wrong. If it can't be subjected to experiment it's no better than the idea of god in adding to our over all knowledge base..

It's an idea that can't be proven true and can't be proven false. Why believe it is or isn't? No one knows and no one presently can. But keep trying to figure out a way, if it's possible.

To me, a philosopher shouldn't care what the truth ends up being, we should care only about figuring out what it actually is. Therefore I believe nothing. I accept only facts. Belief in a fact is redundant and not required. Anything other than fact is speculation. Belief in speculation can be dangerous at worst and unproductive at best. Belief/faith doesn't change facts one way or the other, and closes an open mind

There's nothing wrong with opinions based in fact. That's logic and model building. But the opinion should never be sold as fact. And that happens all too often.

I think if we have faith in logic, math, and deduction, we have to trust nature. Gods could fool us, but so can aliens, and multiverses. It takes much wisdom, to my eyes, to be able to distinguish possibilities with proper probability. Statistics has never been my thing. In psychology class I was classified as a dreamer