Old Greece is the origin of the term "philosophy". Meaning love for wisdom. Wisdom about knowing, or talking about the knowing. Not about the knowing per se, but surrounding thoughts.

Any philosophy, be it eastern or western, is the love for talking about the specific knowledge contained in a specific knowledge system, be it science, the knowledge of the eight-fold way, the knowledge of nature and gods in the universe in a magical outlook, the knowledge of astrology, homeopathic knowledge, etc. You get the picture.

In most knowledge systems, this separation of knowledge and talking about it, is absent. There is no word for philosophy in eastern philosophy. It's a Greek invention. Of course, we speak nowadays about eastern philosophy, but in the original views of the eastern tradition this distinction was not made. Talking about knowledge and the knowledge itself were not separated.

In ancient Greece, the roots of modern science and democracy were tiny structures, like capillaries. Nature was looked at analytically and tried to be placed in a mathematical frame. Philosophy was still part of this knowing. The talking about the knowledge was still a part of the whole. Philosophy of nature.

Then science, under the influence of the very idea that there is a difference between knowing and the talking about it, like the idea got hold that there is an independent reality about which things can only be known approximately, like Plato's realm of an independent realm of mathematics. The stuff known likewise separated from the subjective talk about it.

So science and philosophy became two different disciplines. Ethics, methodology, epistemology, ontology, logic, etc. were disconnected from scientific knowledge, a separation induced by the idea of a separation between an subjective observer and an objective reality.

The philosophy of science is the talking about scientific knowledge, and it is this scientific knowledge that western philosophy is talking about. But science is a large area, an philosophy is talking about political knowledge. Philosophy of the mind is talking about the knowledge of the mind. Philosophy of math, physics, the law, economy, theology, history, language, philosophy about any subject taught at the academia, being taught at a separate faculty. Western philosophy is philosophy of science. Showing love for scientific wisdom, as is the usually ascribed meaning. The subject matter being science.

In short, western philosophy is a Grreek invention to separate the knowledge from the talking about it. A separation being present in western thought only.

Any philosophy, be it eastern or western, is the love for talking about the specific knowledge contained in a specific knowledge system, be it science, the knowledge of the eight-fold way, the knowledge of nature and gods in the universe in a magical outlook, the knowledge of astrology, homeopathic knowledge, etc. You get the picture. — Verdi

Then science, under the influence of the very idea that there is a difference between knowing and the talking about it, like the idea got hold that there is an independent reality about which things can only be known approximately, like Plato's realm of an independent realm of mathematics. The stuff known likewise separated from the subjective talk about it. — Verdi

The philosophy of science is the talking about scientific knowledge, and it is this scientific knowledge that western philosophy is talking about. But science is a large area, an philosophy is talking about political knowledge. Philosophy of the mind is talking about the knowledge of the mind. Philosophy of math, physics, the law, economy, theology, history, language, philosophy about any subject taught at the academia, being taught at a separate faculty. Western philosophy is philosophy of science. Showing love for scientific wisdom, as is the usually ascribed meaning. The subject matter being science.

In short, western philosophy is a Grreek invention to separate the knowledge from the talking about it. A separation being present in western thought only. — Verdi

You've addressed the issue by explaining why the issue doesn't really exist or isn't really important, which is a valid philosophical and rhetorical strategy. We know stuff and philosophy is just talking about the stuff we know. But we are playing the philosophy game here. Here on the forum we think philosophy exists and is important. We think it comes before knowledge, in a sense that it's more important than knowledge. More basic.

So I think you've got it backwards. First comes the world, then comes metaphysics, then comes knowledge. At least that's the hand we're playing here on the forum. That's the hand I'm playing.

So I think you've got it backwards. First comes the world, then comes metaphysics, then comes knowledge. At least that's the hand we're playing here on the forum. That's the hand I'm playing. — T Clark

Yeah, this backwardness is usually used in defensive rethorics. What's more fundamental, science or the talk about it? I make no distinction between the two though.

Philosophy and science form an inseparable whole. I don't know the word for that whole (naturalism?) but the both shape each other and to have a good understanding you need both. On their own they are empty talk.

An attitude found in the ultimate philosophical formal system known as mathematics. (inherited from the ancient Greek philosophers who started this trend, to be rediscovered in the Enlightement).Without physical knowledge, math becomes empty, fictious and abstract talk, but very enjoyable, and it has come a long way since Plato, the computer uncovering realms never before imaginable (though some mathematical geniuses might have done this).

Math is helpful in science, but it are the ideas, theories, models, that are just as important. And math certainly is not the language nature talks to us, let alone a universal language. If we ask a mathematically defined question then nature will answer back mathematically because we force it to in experiments. Just a philosophical thought. Just a hand I am playing.

Philosophy and science form an inseparable whole. I don't know the word for that whole (naturalism?) but the both shape each other and to have a good understanding you need both. On their own they are empty talk. — Verdi

Ok..., but... Somebody else pulled them apart and we're left here to deal with it. Again, the hand we're playing. Also, nothing is an "inseparable whole." In a sense, metaphysics is the process by which we divide the original, primordial inseparable whole, the Tao perhaps, into apples, electrons, and mutual funds.

Beyond which, I think the distinction between metaphysics and science is a useful one. If I'm going to use knowledge to make decisions about actions in the real world, I have to have a good idea of how much I can trust that knowledge. In order to do that, I need to establish and enforce rules for information gathering and processing. That's one of the things epistemology is.

An analysis/critique:

Ok..., but... Somebody else pulled them apart and we're left here to deal — T Clark

True. In ancient Greece they were torn apart and we're left with the mess. So, they are separable, and in that sense no unseparable whole. What I mean though is that the whole is a wholistic whole, to which qualities can be assigned not present in one of both. If I have two lighters of which one contains gas only but no brimstone, and the other vice-versa, I can't light my cigarette with either of them. But combined, I can light it up. Which raises the question if the whole is better, because cigarettes kill. Not being a health mafia member though, I stick to the lighter.

Again, the hand we're playing. Also, nothing is an "inseparable whole." In a sense, metaphysics is the process by which we divide the original, primordial inseparable whole, the Tao perhaps, into apples, electrons, and mutual funds. — T Clark

It's the hand played on this forum. It's even called the philosophy forum. Why shouldn't there be a place for me? You don't say this directly, but I sense this from your wording, and that's all I can cling to. I don't deny philosophy or attack it, not at all. It's a pity though that no attempt is made to regain the connection with the stuff it talks about. Regaining the assembled whole doesn't destroy philosophy nor science. It merely brings to bear unimagined new qualities. Of the whole.

Beyond which, I think the distinction between metaphysics and science is a useful one. — T Clark

It can be a usefull one. But for making the distinction what is metaphysics or physics, one needs to know both first, because the division can't be made if there is nothing to divide.

f I'm going to use knowledge to make decisions about actions in the real world, I have to have a good idea of how much I can trust that knowledge. In order to do that, I need to establish and enforce rules for information gathering and processing. That's one of the things epistemology is. — T Clark

In order to trust knowledge, you don't need epistemology. You need to know that that knowledge works out fine for you. Knowing about the knowledge involved, or the methodology one must use for approaching a problem will only paralyze you. You may claim that epistemology or methodology are exactly what philosophy is about, and that that's the stuff discussed here, but philosophy is not invented to restrict knowledge and its gathering. Philosophy is meant to set free from restrictions. Or at least to further scientific knowledge.

Thanks gmba, I'll have a look and see if I can muster a comment or two when time permits.

True. In ancient Greece they were torn apart and we're left with the mess. So, they are separable, and in that sense no unseparable whole. What I mean though is that the whole is a wholistic whole, to which qualities can be assigned not present in one of both. If I have two lighters of which one contains gas only but no brimstone, and the other vice-versa, I can't light my cigarette with either of them. But combined, I can light it up. — Verdi

By this logic, we should go through the world not making distinctions. Not separating the whole into parts. But we do, and we can't not. I assume it's wired into the circuits at a very early stage of evolution. Might that lead to confusion and misdirection? It does all the time. It's a fundamental human intellectual foible. If you look too closely at the plants, you miss the ecology. If you look too closely at your face in the mirror, you don't notice your zipper is down.

It's the hand played on this forum. It's even called the philosophy forum. Why shouldn't there be a place for me? You don't say this directly, but I sense this from your wording, and that's all I can cling to. — Verdi

Of course there's a place for you on the forum. And there's a place for you in this discussion. I have bad news for you - Denial of the value of philosophy is a philosophical position. A claim that metaphysics is not needed is a metaphysical statement. You're trapped.

Beyond that, I think the philosophy/science distinction is a useful and important one. I've seen many discussions go haywire because participants fail to know which is which.

I don't deny philosophy or attack it, not at all. It's a pity though that no attempt is made to regain the connection with the stuff it talks about. Regaining the assembled whole doesn't destroy philosophy nor science. It merely brings to bear unimagined new qualities. — Verdi

I doubt that "no attempt is made to regain the connection with the stuff it talks about." When making distinctions, it's important to recognize the importance of putting the cuts in appropriate places and also to recognize when making distinctions does not clarify the situation. I think some of us here do that. You can make distinctions without loosing sight of the whole kit and caboodle.

It can be a usefull one. But for making the distinction what is metaphysics or physics, one needs to know both first, because the division can't be made if there is nothing to divide. — Verdi

Agreed.

In order to trust knowledge, you don't need epistemology. You need to know that that knowledge works out fine for you. Knowing about the knowledge involved, or the methodology one must use for approaching a problem will only paralyze you. You may claim that epistemology or methodology are exactly what philosophy is about, and that that's the stuff discussed here, but philosophy is not invented to restrict knowledge and its gathering. Philosophy is meant to set free from restrictions. Or at least to further scientific knowledge. — Verdi

I spent 30 years as an engineer understanding and using information, knowledge, in order to make decisions about actions in the real, expensive world. I have a strong understanding of how knowledge works at a very concrete level and how to use it to choose the right thing to do next. In engineering, data collection is sometimes separate from data validation, data processing, and data usage. Different people often do each of these separate tasks. It is the engineer's job to know how everything fits together and to see that it does.

So... Yes... Epistemology is real and important and the distinction between knowledge and epistemology is real and important.

By this logic, we should go through the world not making distinctions — T Clark

Here you misunderstood what I read. I wrote you divisions are made. But what's divided should be kept also. It's the mutual interaction between the divisions, science and philosophy, that gives the quality absent from each apart. The fire that can only be produced by a lighter with gas only (science) and a lighter with a firestone only (philosophy). So you should divide but not tear apart.

So... Yes... Epistemology is real and important and the distinction between knowledge and epistemology is real and important. — T Clark

Here I disagree.

Here you misunderstood what I read. I read you have to make divisions. But what's divided should be kept also. It's the mutual interaction between the divisions, science and philosophy, that gives the quality absent from each apart. The fire that can only be produced by a lighter with gas only (science) and a lighter with a firestone only (philosophy). — Verdi

I don't think I misunderstand, I disagree, at least in part.

First - Making distinctions can be misleading - agreed.

Second - Some distinctions, such as the one between philosophy and science, are important and useful.

Second - Some distinctions, such as the one between philosophy and science, are important and useful. — T Clark

Indeed. Like I said. But they mustn't be considered apart. Only in relation to the other. Torn apart, they become empty.

Here I disagree. — Verdi

What can you offer to back that up against my testimony of 30 years of daily, nose to the grindstone, data collection, management, and use when I had to face the consequences of being wrong in very concrete, professional, financial, and personal terms. I know what it feels like to be wrong. I don't like it.

I don't think I misunderstand, I disagree, at least in part. — T Clark

You don't think but you do. A philosophy can't exist on its own. Maybe for you, but then you misunderstand me.

What can you offer to back that up against my testimony — T Clark

It's no battle we are fighting. It's just how I view it. Epistemology, the knowledge about knowledge, inhibits knowledge.

It's no battle we are fighting. — Verdi

Does this seem like a battle to you? I thought it was a discussion. I've been friendly and civil.

Does this seem like a battle to you? I thought it was a discussion. I've been friendly and civil. — T Clark

I just don't feel the need to back myself up. I don't mean you are not friendly or not civil. I just think epistemology has no place in philosophy. Like I said, I think knowledge about knowledge keeps one away from immersing oneself in knowledge. I like philosophizing about knowledge, but I don't need to know anything about it.

I like philosophizing about knowledge, but I don't need to know anything about it. — Verdi

This conversation has been fun and interesting.

Just make this comment to put 3 related threads happily together, on top and below each other.

Philosophy makes explicit, or describes, the assumptions (confusions) of conceptual questions and/or hypothetical problems.

Philosophy of science also makes explicit, or describes, the limits of (commitments to) particular methods and practices – paradigms – used to organize, conduct and evaluate research into hypothetical problems (explaining how X transforms into Y)

Science consists of research that systematically proceeds by observationally clarifying (formulates) and then experimentally solving (tests) hypothetical problems (explaining how X transforms into Y).