So, the basic idea is that science has two components:
— Agent Smith
If you are interested about the components of Science or its nature in general the following lecture is the best you can find.

Systematicity: The Nature of Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK7uhQ_QCk — Nickolasgaspar

:ok: Merci beaucoup.

I am criticizing people's efforts to seek validity by trying to place their superstitions under the umbrella of status called Philosophy — Nickolasgaspar

It's a fact that lots of classic battles are still raging under the tent of philosophy. To take one side is to think the other is wrong or at least less rational/convincing. Assuming that there is one right answer to questions like 'what is science?' or 'what is meaning?' (which may itself be superstition), you're going to have people on the wrong side of an issue who are nevertheless making a case for their position while incorporating criticism.

As far as I can tell, you are trying to apply scientific standards to philosophy, without realizing that such an application needs to be justified. For instance, Popper's demarcation is not something that can be falsified. Is it therefore superstition? Hardly. It's an attempt to articulate what it means to try to not be superstitious. It's a suggested convention. 'Hey guys...maybe this is a way to be less stupid and wrong.' It's a part of philosophy. Alternative conceptions of science are also a part of philosophy.

You seem to want to use 'Philosophy' for 'my current opinions' or 'the philosophy I like.' That's an aggressive and confusing approach that will interfere with productive conversation.

Also, I'd like your opinion of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

Is truth only good as a means to get power? Or good in itself? Is it pretty ? Why do we care?

What's the difference between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy? I don't mind people using philosophy as a psychological crutch, to validate their own thoughts and feelings. I suspect I do it myself. If it works, why not? Feed two birds with one scone.

It's a fact that lots of classic battles are still raging under the tent of philosophy.
To take one side is to think the other is wrong or at least less rational/convincing. — jas0n

You will need to be more specific or else I will be forced to conclude that you are talking about a different topic.
I am talking about ideas that aren't founded on epistemology and have zero reality check in their entire intellectual process (i.e. Supernaturalism, theism etc).
We don't need to think them as wrong. They are just non philosophical.

Assuming that there is one right answer to questions like 'what is science?' or 'what is meaning?' (which may itself be superstition), you're going to have people on the wrong side of an issue who are nevertheless making a case for their position while incorporating criticism. — jas0n

-those are irrelevant topics to the points I make.

As far as I can tell, you are trying to apply scientific standards to philosophy, without realizing that such an application needs to be justified. — jas0n

No I am pointing out that the standards of basic logic should apply in all intellectual endeavors, plus the goal of Philosophy (wisdom) and the method defined by Aristotle demand those high standards.
Its irrational to state that "you" are a lover of wisdom while your syllogism are isolated from established epistemology and logical standards.
Its not a matter of opinion or my burden to justify those standards. Those who assume that can produce wise claims without being founded on logic and knowledge should try to justify their acts.

For instance, Popper's demarcation is not something that can be falsified. Is it therefore superstition? — jas0n

Principles and axioms may be unfalsifiable but their value is validated every time we use them. Popper's rule of thumb has demonstrated its value since we are aware of our empirical limitations in providing proofs . Trying to find evidence that can falsify a claim is the best tool we have and real Pragmatic Necessity.

Is it therefore superstition? — jas0n

lets nott pretend that Logic and axioms are in the same ball park with superstitious claims. If only you could produce the results we have by using the empirical rules of logic. Yes logic is empirically shaped and guided.

Hardly. It's an attempt to articulate what it means to try to not be superstitious. It's a suggested convention. 'Hey guys...maybe this is a way to be less stupid and wrong.' It's a part of philosophy. Alternative conceptions of science are also a part of philosophy. — jas0n

-Those are not even close. Not being able to prove i.e. logical absolutes is not the same with assumed agents or made up concepts. The logical absolutes are verified every time we use them and even if we can not prove them in a mathematical degree of certainty they are instrumentally and epistemically valuable.

You seem to want to use 'Philosophy' for 'my current opinions' or 'the philosophy I like.' That's an aggressive and confusing approach that will interfere with productive conversation. — jas0n

-What you seem to belief is irrelevant. What is philosophy is or isn't is something demarcated by the actual goal of the intellectual process.
The goal set is Wisdom. You can not have wisdom without knowledge and logic.

s truth only good as a means to get power? Or good in itself? Is it pretty ? Why do we care? — jas0n

Is it good to accept a model that is in agreement with facts about reality.i.e Those who ignored the truth claim about gravity and tried to "fly" are a good answer to your question.
Those who embraced the true claim of germs and chose antibiotics instead of prayers....can answer you.

Now on instrumentalism....Instrumental value is just one more way to verify (not prove beyond any doubt) our knowledge claims.
Science doesn't deal with absolute truth or absolute knowledge. Methodological Naturalism makes that clear. The falsifiable nature of frameworks also deny absolute concepts. Those may have their role as our ultimate goals but we need NOT to strawman science.
The same should be true for Philosophy outside science.(or better any philosophical endeavor that skips the steps of Epistemology and science).

I have a great lecture on that.
Is Philosophy Stupid? - Richard Carrier - Skepticon 6
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=is+philosophy+stupid
let me quote the bullet points presented in the talk.

1.Pseudo philosophy relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. it relies on factually false, outdated or undemonstrated premises ( epistemic disconnectedness either on purpose or on ignorance)

3. Isn't corrected when noted(sophistry and total disregard of the rules of Logic).

What's the difference between philosophy and pseudo-philosophy? I suspect I do it myself. If it works, why not? Feed two birds with one scone. — Agent Smith

I forgot to address your point.
You stated that " I don't mind people using philosophy as a psychological crutch, to validate their own thoughts and feelings."
-The issue is that when claims are designed to validate thoughts and feelings they are no longer philosophical , by definition (etymology and goal of the method).
Philosophy's goal is wisdom. Wisdom can only be achieved through logic and Knowledge.
Logic and knowledge do not have a good track with feelings and comforting thoughts....

I don't deny we all do it.....I only point out that philosophy has nothing to do with that.
You can call it superstitious excuses or religious ideologies but Philosophy is an exercise in frustration. The comforting feeling of understanding things is only a side effect not the main goal of Philosophy...or better it shouldn't be.. (well we can argue its the main motivation behind our efforts).

So you're of the view that most of what's on this forum is pseudo-philosophy? I haven't actually studied the threads on here but from a drive-by they're mostly on positions of other well-known philosophers. That can't be pseudo-philosophy, oui? Perhaps you mean to point out how we've misunderstood the works of these philosophers, but then misunderstanding is, for me at least, a stage one must pass through towards full comprehension, ja?

In other words, pseudo-philosophy is part and parcel of true/genuine philosophy. The transition from false to true philosophy is, of course, a short one if one is genuine in one's desire to do philosophy. However, for me, philosophy has a steep learning curve.

I forgot to address your point.
You stated that " I don't mind people using philosophy as a psychological crutch, to validate their own thoughts and feelings."
-The issue is that when claims are designed to validate thoughts and feelings they are no longer philosophical , by definition (etymology and goal of the method).
Philosophy's goal is wisdom. Wisdom can only be achieved through logic and Knowledge.
Logic and knowledge do not have a good track with feelings and comforting thoughts....

I don't deny we all do it.....I only point out that philosophy has nothing to do with that.
You can call it superstitious excuses or religious ideologies but Philosophy is an exercise in frustration. The comforting feeling of understanding things is only a side effect not the main goal of Philosophy...or better it shouldn't be.. (well we can argue its the main motivation behind our efforts). — Nickolasgaspar

Some say that philosophy and psychology are joined at the hip.

So you're of the view that most of what's on this forum is pseudo-philosophy? — Agent Smith

-I don't want to be absolute but at least most if not all of the OP and the comments I have checked do not meat the philosophical standards.(zero epistemic evaluation or support of the assumptions used in the hypothesis).

I haven't actually studied the threads on here but from a drive-by they're mostly on positions of other well-known philosophers. That can't be pseudo-philosophy, oui? — Agent Smith

-yes. Many of the old philosophical ideas enjoy a free ride because of the name of their authors.
In addition to that most of those who reproduce those ideas aren't aware that they are just chronicling (cherry picking a specific idea in time) not doing real philosophy.

Perhaps you mean to point out how we've misunderstood the works of these philosophers, but then misunderstanding is, for me at least, a stage one must pass through towards full comprehension, ja? — Agent Smith

- My point is that Science constantly feeds our epistemology and discards those frameworks that do not meet our logical criteria while Philosophy is dead on its tracks in many topics mainly by allowing old "relics" to co exist with real philosophy.
A great source to understand the problem in Philosophy is Mario Bunge critique (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Crisis-Reconstruction-Prometheus-Lectures/dp/1573928437) on the 10 problems found in Academia and it function.
here is the list.

• Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions
• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling
• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)
• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems
• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism
• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games
• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology
• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)
• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)
• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them)

.

misunderstanding is...a stage one must pass through towards full comprehension, — Agent Smith

And maybe one never quite achieves full comprehension ? Then what would we do? Sounds like death.

... pseudo-philosophy is part and parcel of true/genuine philosophy... — Agent Smith

:up:

I think I'm seeing your role in the drama. You are a debunker and a reformer, yes? Are you 100% sure you are qualified? Do you consider Ayn Rand a great philosopher?

-I don't want to be absolute but at least most if not all of the OP and the comments I have checked do not meat the philosophical standards.(zero epistemic evaluation or support of the assumptions used in the hypothesis) — Nickolasgaspar

Maybe a sampling bias. You seem very much interested in metaphysics which is, from what I can tell, yet to mature philosophically like, for instance, epistemology or ethics. We're still in explore mode, haven't yet found a place to set up base if you know what I mean.

• Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions
• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling
• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)
• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems
• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism
• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games
• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology
• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)
• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)
• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them) — Nickolasgaspar

:up: However, these are textbook cases of missing the forest for the trees or being so absorbed in a task that one, at some point along the way, forgets what one was doing. This doesn't come as a surprise to me at all. We need to use post-its. It's a jungle out there. Too easy to get lost. Nonetheless, your post is on point. Time to do something about it!

Some say that philosophy and psychology are joined at the hip. — Agent Smith

Well science and philosophy are joined by default. When we have data we call it science , when we don't have data we call it philosophy.
Psychology has a robust body of knowledge but since it is a field under growth many of our interpretations and conclusions are still hypotheses(under evaluation or in need of additional data).
We need not to confuse our psychological needs and Philosophy's purpose.
Again the joy we feel when finally understand something or arriving to factually wise conclusions maybe our core drive to philosophize but it has nothing to do with our urge to seek comfort and pleasure. There is a huge difference between happiness (enabled by knowledge and wisdom) and pleasure (the brief satisfaction of our anxieties).

And maybe one never quite achieves full comprehension ? Then what would we do? Sounds like death. — jas0n

I wish there was a named effect/problem I could use here. Here's the deal: I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it.

Mario Bunge critique — Nickolasgaspar

Marketing of above:

Is philosophy dead? Some philosophers have declared it to be so, and judging by some of the mental acrobatics now fashionable in postmodernist circles a reasonable person might have to agree. Though recognizing the moribund state of current academic philosophy, Mario Bunge feels that this is a crisis from which the discipline can and will recover.

Beware postmodernist circles ! Don't read the books yourself. That'd be difficult. Buy an easier book that assures you that you aren't missing anything, that it's all a conspiracy. Whole industry of this stuff. Less interesting than the authors they attack, all saying the same thing, hoping common sense and yesterday's thinking is plenty. For practical life, it probably is. But they want to perform the intellectual too, and this kind of book offers a short cut. The starter kit is a bag of six words. Maybe all beginnings are at least as humble.

I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it. — Agent Smith

:up:

I think I'm seeing your role in the drama. You are a debunker and a reformer, yes? Are you 100% sure you are qualified? Do you consider Ayn Rand a great philosopher? — jas0n

My role is irrelevant.
There are facts that you all need to consider before declaring an idea "philosophical".
Its the goal of this method identified as sophia (wisdom). In order for a claim to be wise it needs to retain its ties to Logic and Knowledge.
We can not have it both ways.
Pointing obvious flaws and οmmisions is not the role of a "debunker or a reformer". There are objective reasons why astrology and alchemy are not sciences and there is also obvious objective reasons why supernaturalism and magicalism are not Philosophy.

I don't need a special qualification (not to say I don't have it ) to point out obvious facts and criteria on how to demarcate Philosophy from Pseudo Philosophy.
Like everything in life...there is a good version of it and a bad one. Noise from a drum set (lacking rythm, or patterns) isn't "music"..
I understand why people resist these facts but I don't understand why they don't even attempt to justify their choice by not attacking the messenger who points out the obvious issue.

Ayn Rand.To be honest I don't know much of her work. I am not in to chronicling.To be more precise I have a bad memory. I have watched a series of lectures about her but I can't recall many things. What I did like though was her attitude against or in favor of concrete Definitions.

It seems to me that you are mostly repeating platitudes. It's unfortunate that you didn't participate in the Popper thread. Basic observation statements are not so basic after all. From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy. You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role.

Maybe a sampling bias. You seem very much interested in metaphysics which is, from what I can tell, yet to mature philosophically like, for instance, epistemology or ethics. We're still in explore mode, haven't yet found a place to set up base if you know what I mean. — Agent Smith

the problem is that we allow the polluting of our metaphysics because they happen to expand outside science. Unfortunately Philosophy doesn't monitor its fields that well (under the pretense of free inquiry) so we end up having pseudo and real philosophy side by side in credible journals.

However, these are textbook cases of missing the forest for the trees or being so absorbed in a task that one, at some point along the way, forgets what one was doing. This doesn't come as a surprise to me at all. We need to use post-its. It's a jungle out there. Too easy to get lost. Nonetheless, your post is on point. Time to do something about it! — Agent Smith

I commend you for your ability to realize that there is a real issue in our philosophy! Ιts something that most people have problems comprehending the rules or straight up deny them.

Beware postmodernist circles ! Don't read the books yourself. That'd be difficult. Buy an easier book that assures you that you aren't missing anything, that it's all a conspiracy. Whole industry of this stuff. Less interesting than the authors they attack, all saying the same thing, hoping common sense and yesterday's thinking is plenty. For practical life, it probably is. But they want to perform the intellectual too, and this kind of book offers a short cut. The starter kit is a bag of six words. Maybe all beginnings are at least as humble. — jas0n

I don't address conspiracy theories.
The book describes observable problems found in our philosophical practices. Philosophy not only fails to experience the success of science, but it reprocesses old dead end ideas again and again.

-"It seems to me that you are mostly repeating platitudes."
-Again the selection of words show that you either are unable to understand the issue or you are not willing to disturb the foundations of your beliefs.

It's unfortunate that you didn't participate in the Popper thread. — jas0n

Why is that...do you have a "got you" point that you use in there?

Basic observation statements are not so basic after all. — jas0n

I don't know what that means and how it is relevant to the problems I point out.

The weird thing is that you avoid addressing the actual arguments.
i.e. the role of wisdom, reason and knowledge in philosophical inquiries and why people accept claims to be philosophical without ticking all three boxes.
What you call platitudes are essential questions that people tap dance around them.

-" From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy. "
-From my perspective you don't have the foundations to distinquish philosophy from pseudo philosophy....and that is not a subjective opinion. I can point to missing standards (logic, knowledge wisdom) in your ideologies and objectively demonstrate their non philosophical nature (if they are missing of course).

You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role. — jas0n

-" From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy.
You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role. "
-You are feeling sour because of the facts I put on the table.
You don't really have any arguments to kick back so you decide to attack the messenger....talking about logical fallacies and "doing" philosophy"....
Do you have any real arguments that could justify epistemically unfounded principles in Philosophy....like Supernaturalistic ones?
how can you tie conclusions based on supernatural assumption to wisdom, knowledge and logic.????

I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it. — Agent Smith

-the problem is that you don't know what a ghost is, you don't have the address of the house, you don't have the keys to get in...and you assume it is hunted.
in parallel, we don't know the ontology of the supernatural, we don't have a way to verify it or investigate it and people insist in using this concept as an auxiliary assumption in their "philosophical speculations".
This is not philosophy.

Philosophy not only fails to experience the success of science, but it reprocesses old dead end ideas again and again. — Nickolasgaspar

This is the kind of grand-vague-trite criticism that I'm trying to point out. It's a conspiracy theory. Those postmodernist circles are engaged in an endless circle jerk with the same old useless ideas. As if anyone gives a fuck. As if philosophers run the world. As if there's a shortage of engineers whose idea of culture is video games.

I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it. — Agent Smith

.
-I don't know when you stop beating your wife? can you see the problem in your initial statement?
And how entering that home will allow you to know???
What methods will you use to FALSIFY that universal negative statement?

well there you have it, by dismissing valid critique you allow pseudo philosophy in the philosophical realm.
btw better update your definition of A conspiracy theory.
and of course you need to demonstrate a conspiracy...not just assume it just because it meshes with your beliefs.

-You are feeling sour because of the facts I put on the table. — Nickolasgaspar

You have hardly provided any facts, just recycled deepities about the sorry state of philosophy.

Do you have any real arguments that could justify epistemically unfounded principles in Philosophy....like Supernaturalistic ones?
how can you tie conclusions based on supernatural assumption to wisdom, knowledge and logic.???? — Nickolasgaspar

That seems to be all you have, this obsession with the supernatural. Philosophy is dominated by atheists. I'm an atheist. This forum also seems to lean atheist/agnostic. For many people the whole supernatural issue is so settled that it's not even interesting.

Your biggest gripe about philosophers? That they didn't become scientists or engineers instead....

A 2014 survey by David Chalmers and David Bourget on nearly 1,000 professional philosophers from 99 leading departments of philosophy shows that 72.8% considered themselves as atheists, 14.6% considered themselves as theist, and 12.6% as something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#:~:text=A%202014%20survey%20by%20David,and%2012.6%25%20as%20something%20else.

But you keep dodging the core issue here.
How can a philosophical conclusion be wise without epistemic foundations.
Would you find wise the suggestion of using the window to exit your apartment if your goal is to save time....without knowing the floor your apartment is located?
You and no other pseudo philosopher has or can answer that....you all just choose to ignore that simple fact. You can not have wise claims without epistemic support.

well there you have it, by dismissing valid critique you allow pseudo philosophy in the philosophical realm. — Nickolasgaspar

Your 'valid' critique was a few pejorative adjectives, a few platitudes, and a few links to books/videos that maybe were supposed to supply the actual critique....

Trivialities, Nick.

Read some more philosophy. You'll see folks articulating and discussing what it means to be rational, wise, scientific, and so on.

You can not have wise claims without epistemic support. — Nickolasgaspar

This is an awkward tautology. The hard part (the actual work) is figuring out what all that otherwise vague babble means.

You have hardly provided any facts, just recycled deepities about the sorry state of philosophy. — jas0n

- you need to focus...I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations.

That seems to be all you have, this obsession with the supernatural. Philosophy is dominated by atheists. I'm an atheist. This forum also seems to lean atheist/agnostic. For many people the whole supernatural issue is so settled that it's not even interesting. — jas0n

-So you can't offer an answer. You are not the only one. Your obsession with magical thinking is what pollutes our philosophy....not mine.

Your biggest gripe about philosophers? That they didn't become scientists or engineers instead. — jas0n

-ad hominem. We are talking on how we can produce wise claims...not knowledge.
Again last chance....how can a claim be wise while being epistemically uninformed.?
Sorry for holding your feet in the fire, but its a huge demarcation point between philosophy and what you think you do....