Hmm. Philosophizing while questioning the value of philosophy... EVERYONE philosophizes and values philosophy even when they don’t realize they are DOING IT!

Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. What is the philosophical equivalent? — Denovo Meme

Been thinking about this more. Philosophy has lots of laws and principles:

• Law of the excluded middle
• T Clark is always right
• Law of non-contradiction
• Law of identity
• Don't use any of the 10,000 logical fallacies
• Lots more

Problem - they're all bullshit except the second one.

On the other hand, science doesn't really have any laws either. A law describes how something has to act or should act. Scientific laws only describe how the world generally tends to act under certain circumstances. They describe. They don't cause or explain.

On the other hand, science doesn't really have any laws either. A law describes how something has to act or should act. Scientific laws only describe how the world generally tends to act under certain circumstances. They describe. They don't cause or explain. — T Clark

And there is growing evidence that they may be local and time bound - iow not really laws, but patterns.

And there is growing evidence that they may be local and time bound - iow not really laws, but patterns. — Coben

Such as, how do you model individual clouds or people. Generalities are easy because it ignores most of reality.

Such as, how do you model individual clouds or people. Generalities are easy because it ignores most of reality. — Noah Te Stroete

Could you expand on that, I didn't get it.

In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense?

When I read or discuss a bit of philosophy I become frustrated with the way people quote a philosopher as if the philosopher has the answer. — Denovo Meme

That's sounds like a battle of appeals to authority. IOW philosophy has a critique of that kind of communication - we could call this critique or fallacy something similar to a natural law - which can aid one in dealing with such things in scientific discussions, philosophy, politics, wherever.

There is never a shred of data, worldly evidence of universality, or even revolutionary insight. — Denovo Meme

There are certainly philosophical works that include data. And philsophical discussions online will sometimes include data. Other types of discussions in philosophy can't use data.

Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. — Denovo Meme

I assume that was an example that number. Science is in fact a product of philosophical thinking, at least at many points in its history there have been philosophical discussions, by scientists, by generalists, by philosophers, about epistemology. And this has aided (and perhaps sometimes blocked) scientific research and strategies. If you are having a discussion over free will vs. determinism, I am not sure where a numerical value can come in. If you are analysing the language use in a position, again, I don't see where number values come in. It's a bit like saying that your literary studies didn't deal much with chemicals. These are different kinds of truths being sought after, often at a more abstract level then science is aiming for in specific research.

In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense? — Noah Te Stroete

Yes, I get that. But then science would also say what clouds are made of, how the water gets up there and all sorts of things that help us understand individuals. What are human bones made of? What are the smallest parts of water made of? Why am I myopic? HOw can that bug walk on water? I am not contradicting what you said, perhaps, but it is not like there is only information about general categories and none about individuals in science. Much of science will say what all individuals in a group are like, for example.

In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense? — Noah Te Stroete

And they must do this out of necessity. Medicine is another example. Trends are found and treatments are based on these trends instead of treating the individual’s unique physiology. Although, it would be easier to treat an individual as an individual in medicine than to, say, determine what a particular cloud is going to do. It wouldn’t even be worth the effort to determine what a cloud is going to do. It would be worth the effort to find treatments for the individual, but it is not economical or even viable in practice.