I'm not sure I understand how you are connecting cognitive bias theory with critical thinking. In what sense are you proposing they are connected? — Tom Storm

Well, having cognitive biases would lead to a more "subjective" vision of reality, so cognitive bias mitigation would naturally lead to a more "objective" one, and that would imply to be more critical about yourself or others in order to do that.

Actually that is exactly what it means. It seems you are coming from some kind of radically anti-scientific bias. All in good fun I guess, but not a good use of my time. — Pantagruel

With experiments, we can conclude a lot of people have cognitive bias (or whatever you want to call it actually), but that doesn't mean that we have tools to measure it quantitively in someone at a given moment. You have no way of measuring how much someone's opinion is biased. What did you have in mind? That we have some kind of cognitive bias detector that tells you how biased you are?

but by drawing pictures on the board and describing the underlying concept students could see through the complications and comprehend a rational argument that implied the result — jgill

Oh yeah I think that method could actually help a lot, it would be harder to ignore one element due to strong emotions if it's in front of your eyes and logically connected to all the others.

But I was talking about trying to figure out if you are experiencing a cognitive bias, like simply asking yourself "do I take this decision because of the survivorship bias?". I think that approach is not efficient at all.

But I think this thread is more about political biases. — jgill

Political? No not necessarily, it could be all kinds of bias really.

Experimentation requires quantifiable results. Statistical are quantitative. — Pantagruel

Just because we use numbers for interpretations doesn't mean the phenomenon is quantitatively measurable...

Another weird thread that starts with a slightly off OP and gets worse as it proceeds. — Banno

Um... I'm going to ignore that, I don't want to start a war. I only meant to share my thoughts and understand a concept that's trendy nowadays.

Cognitive bias is not one thing — Banno

Yeah okay, use the plural if you prefer that, it's a concept that has a lot of subcategories.

The example in the OP is not an instance of cognitive bias. — Banno

How is it not the survivorship bias?

We can adjust for Cognitive bias by being aware of them, giving consideration to what justifies our beliefs and by subjecting our beliefs to public critique. — Banno

How can you be aware of something that's unconscious?

You are denying accepted psychology. — Banno

Heresy, burn him! No one shall go against the opinion of the great masters of psychology.

confirmation bias distorts news all the time and is a threat to democracy. — jgill

. . .

This has gone terribly wrong, I wanted to argue about HOW and WHY people think it helps with critical thinking and no defenders of that theory actually explained it... Can anyone tell me how you can detect something that's unconscious? Doesn't this cognitive bias theory has the same problem as psychoanalysis, that's it's not falsifiable?

Many of these biases have been tested in experimental conditions, — Pantagruel

That doesn't mean that it's measurable quantitatively...

Consider the law of small numbers bias. If you are aware of the tendency to make judgements based on unreasonably small sample sizes, then you can suspend judgment pending more data — Pantagruel

That works for experiments, not personal opinions... You could have a lot of well-grounded reasons to believe in something, even though there aren't direct experiments about it, or even though you've only observed it in some people for example. It's not necessarily a bias to have an opinion based on a small number of cases. But to go back to the survivorship bias, in the example I gave, realising there is a bias doesn't really help you make a "less emotional" decision, it leads to confusion. Regarding knowledge, it's going to be the same thing, every time there is room for a grey area, your feelings might make you see it completely white (or black), and I don't see how the cognitive bias theory could help you.

Wouldn't it be much more efficient to think in terms of feelings? At least you can consciously realise how you're feeling, and know that it might influence your opinion. It gets even better as you can think about the same thing once you've calmed down and see if your opinion is the same. At least it's falsifiable as you don't feel the same things all the time, unlike cognitive biases that have no way of being detected consciously.

Cognitive biases are quantitatively measurable — Pantagruel

I would very much like to see your sources for that info.

Brains are survival machines, not truth machines! — Agent Smith

More objective truth helps with survival though...

Yet, some people are more biased to accept the word of God, than others. — Gnomon

I didn't get that...

I just thought of something else. Do you think someone who spends a lot of time understanding people will be able to grasp one's opinion better? You talked about exposing believes and goals, but then don't people need to have knowledge in psychology as well? Don't we need a strong basis about how our goals and believes interact with our opinions to be able to make use of it?

Because someone might be good at detecting flaws in logic but clueless about these things, right?

Here are examples of questions that I think have very, very little meaning or interest, because of what I have outlined above.

Is God existent?
Is morality objective?
Is [insert literally anything] true?
Is [insert literally anything] moral?
Is life/ humanity inherently good/ bad? — SatmBopd

The way I see it: if a person defines both terms, and ask one of these questions on this forum, they probably want to challenge the logic behind it. If you define a category X and a category Y, and if you're trying to figure out how these categories are connected to each other (completely included, partially,...), it could be interesting to ask people their opinion. They might point out something in your X category that makes it impossible to be related to Y, and you might not have thought about it.
Even if you wouldn't define X as they define it, it could still be productive for both parties to debate using one's point of view.

What is generally understood, and what do I specifically understand, by the concept of God, and why? — SatmBopd

This would be ideal but do you really think it's realistic? Can you really tell why you believe in something? Most of the time, the way you reached a specific opinion has a lot of unconscious steps, so how could you go back and explain how you got there? What if you're wrong? What if you think you got there because of X reasons, while it's actually not at all because of that? That would make it even more confusing for others. And they couldn't prove you wrong, because only you could answer that. Do you know what I mean?

mind boy dualism is by many considered to be untenable. What he did (possibly, I wasn't there of course) was show you how this assumption, which is deeply problematic, was made in your argument. — Tobias

In other words :
Question : Is the mind separated from the body?
Philosophical answer : Probably not, because it would cause a lot of problems if it was.

Assumptions : a lot of assumptions about what the mind and the body actually mean.
Problem : the scientists and philosophers have totally different definition of these.

You, a couple of lines later :

Philosophy questions, it does not give answers but puts those on the spot that would like to provide an answer. — Tobias

How's that not an answer to say the mind is probably not separated from the body?
Philosophy of sciences studies the assumptions of science, and I believe epistemology can study the assumptions of philosophy. But philosophy isn't just about criticising knowledge, is it? What about Ontology, doesn't it study what reality is? How is that a critique of knowledge provided by other disciplines?

Well, you can of course, but you will run into problems because you have unwittingly accepted a whole lot of assumptions that they carry around with them. — Tobias

Oh and philosophical concepts don't have assumptions?
And by the way, this hypothetical science-based philosophy could still take "advice" from a philosophy of sciences.

But I can understand your frustration cause though I find it necessary ,sometimes the overanalysis ends up ridiculous. — dimosthenis9

You know what's funny? If you set the limits of the analysis, it's impossible to overanalyse, you would end up saying "this matter is out of the limit of this discipline".

How do you imagine that method? — dimosthenis9

Well, I actually believe some clarity could be gained if we made the assumptions explicit rather than implicit. To visualise, we could build a mind map with all the underlying scientific concepts that lead to an understanding of the abstract one that we study, and detail the logical links we made between them. And this would include the uncertainties of the links we made. For example you could say this concept is partly related but not totally because of x and y, which can't be measured. To make it perfect, we would need this concept, which isn't proven by science. Do you know what I mean?

There could be several mind maps, with different underlying concepts but the idea would be to build the one that has the least uncertainties.

wasn't he doing what philosophy ought to do? — Tobias

Well, if this is what philosophy does, it becomes even clearer to me that it's impossible for science and philosophy to collaborate... What do you think?

On the questions that were left.... he had no opinion. Of course not, because probably they were questions best left to science and he is no scientist. In one of my classes (not in uni but at a private course) a student exclaimed "are we getting any answers!". I answered "no, only better questions". — Tobias

I have no problem if someone doesn't have an opinion, but he could have said so from the beginning. Instead, he just explained how my point of view did not fit in his philosophical one... (and I'm not a philosophy student so that was even more irrelevant). If you want more details, my question was whether he thinks there are other causes than psychological ones for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (yeah I know, weird topic). And he spent his time telling me how we cannot separate the mind and the body. The problem is, there are a lot of philosophical concepts, and a lot of them contradict each other, so how can you even say that a question is wrong if it doesn't fit a concept (which here I think is more of an opinion)? What would be the "better questions"? Questions that challenge the logic of the concepts? Okay fine, but what if I want to start from scientific concepts? How does that make it "wrong"? What makes philosophical concepts stronger than scientific ones in your opinion?

Thank you! I think you understood my point.

The counter argument of course is that in many philosophical theories (of any kind of field) science plays a crucial role indeed — dimosthenis9

Could you give me an example?

Maybe he wants to suggest a science based philosophy that would unify all fields or something like that — dimosthenis9

I don't see it as it would unify all fields, but rather use some scientific theories (not all!) when it seems relevant to a "philosophical" issue. Maybe it is already done by some but there are a lot of concepts for which it isn't done and if we had such a discipline, we wouldn't miss out on so many concepts. As I gave the example earlier, scientists don't define the term "individual" or "organism". When I'm searching for such definitions, I mostly find debates about whether it is useful to define it, whether it belongs to philosophy or biology, or whether it should be studied by philosophy of biology, and I just find this incredibly inefficient. I saw that philosophy of biology aims to clarify such concepts but I'm still wondering : where is it at? Where is their consensus?

There seems to be a huge problem for philosophers and scientists to communicate with each other and maybe that's why it doesn't lead to some kind of encyclopedia where they would define such concepts (also giving the uncertainties on the definition they created). My point being, this interdisciplinary approach is clearly not working, so maybe we should forget everything we know about philosophy (only for that purpose, not remove it from the society), start with just science and slowly create a method on how to maximize logical reasoning leading to these concepts.

but the style in which it is presented is insulting. 'All these philo profs have gotten it all wrong, they are not wise, instead we should be 'independent thinker' (essentially like me! me! me!). — Tobias

I'm sorry you felt insulted, it did not mean to insult philosophy. I did mean to criticise it though. Maybe I haven't spent enough time with philosophers to say all of this with certainty, but my experience has been pretty bad, and not just with philosophers, but also when I read philosophical articles in general. I once spent 15 mins trying to get a philosophy professor to answer one of my question, which simply was "what's your opinion on that matter?". It lead to a lot of side talking, where he explained to me how my questions were "wrong", how we could not see it the way I see it. And, to be honest this is the kind of behaviour that makes quite upset, as I wouldn't want to see philosophy as some kind of religion with rules where only certain opinions are accepted because they do not contradict other philosophical concepts. The funniest thing is that, in the end, he said he doesn't have an opinion, he doesn't know... I really don't know how science and philosophy can collaborate if philosophy doesn't accept to see the world other than with philosophical concepts...

I excepted this to be more funny, disappointed.

Oh but by the way, I thought you said you didn't want to argue anymore, what happened to that?

Respectively, please state the thesis you are arguing for. — Jackson

I did, in the OP, but if you think some parts are unclear, do tell.

You are asking everyone to read your OP and accusing them of not reading well. when your readers do not know what you are on about, probably the writing sucks. — Tobias

Well have you thought about asking more questions instead of jumping into criticism?

but it does not use scientific concepts to examine themselves. — Tobias

What... This is such a twisted idea, why would anyone want to do that? To make things clearer, you could have another discipline, even a branch of philosophy which studies the method of this "science-based philosophy", just like there is a philosophy of science, why not? But this science-based philosophy wouldn't study the method of any discipline.

I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to. — Tobias

My conclusion as well. — Jackson

This is a forum for f sake... Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas?

Well go ahead study cultural sociology, or macro economics or big history — Tobias

Again, can you please read my OP? I said science based: chemistry, biology and physics.

The emergence of science is a moment in men's becoming self aware. That can never be refuted or proven by scientific theory, the picture is actually too big. — Tobias

You didn't understand what I meant, and I don't think you want to.

Why would you want to use the object of enquiry to examine the object of enquiry? — Tobias

Well that's what philosophy of science does, not everything in philosophy is about that.

The "science-based Philosophy" is the study of a subject that is done through the scientific method that renders verifiable findings by observation or experience rather than theory or subjective approach via logic. — Rocco Rosano

Wait I'm confused : "is"? Like it actually exists?

Because science pretends to search for truth, while in reality it's objective is far more obscure — Hillary

Yeah careful, we're coming, be prepared.

Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven — chiknsld

Yep that works too!

Why would that be? — Jackson

Because it's in the concept itself ;)

Science can't pull itself up by it's bootstraps. That's the thing, one of the things, that philosophy is needed for. — T Clark

I think you understood that I wanted to remove philosophy and do sciences only, which is absolutely not what I meant.

If you want to explain everything there is simply no way to do it through science. — chiknsld

I suggest you read again my OP where I explicitly say that it wouldn't try to explain everything, and that some topics would be left for philosophy.

you really seem to want is to limit philosophy to the scientific method — Tobias

No, I want to create something else that is restricted to scientific theories as the basis of the reasoning, not the scientific method. Did everyone miss the part where I said I don't want to replace philosophy? That I'm only comparing the topics these two would have in common?

You also neglect the fact that such a jump requires a lot of interpretation but how that is done remains unclear — Tobias

No, in the example, I talk about the uncertainties, and about why it lead to poor theories when they tried something like that with evolutionnary psychology. And yes, how it is done is probably unclear for you, so you're saying it's impossible to do it well?

Your plea for independence in fact comes down to a plea for reductionism and dependence, limiting rather than expanding our avenues of thought — Tobias

You totally misunderstood what I meant. Just because there would be a discipline that's dependent on scientific theories doesn't mean I encourage reductionism. Again, I DO NOT WANT TO DESTROY PHILOSOPHY. Or even believes, keep all that, the point of comparison does not apply to these.

It would do away with Popper 's methodology! — Hillary

Absolutely not, Popper is talking about science, about the method, about what qualifies as science, so this is philosophy of science, not a science-based philosophy. Unless I'm missing another part of his work that I'm not aware of?

If you really have no idea what philosophers of science do then you need to find out. I mean, this is extremely elementary — Jackson

If you could give me an example, I could show you how it is different from what I mean. But you won't do it so I assume you're not interested in debating anymore, or you have no idea what you're talking about.

The philosophy of science does nothing but discuss scientific concepts. — Jackson

Then it really shouldn't be too hard for you to find an example, right? Why don't you give one?

Defining basic concepts is what the philosophy of science does. You seemed to reject this idea but I did not understand why. — Jackson

I didn't reject the idea, I asked for an example, which you never gave. Can you please give me a concept in philosophy of science that is defined with scientific concepts?

It seems that you're interested in science and not philosophy. Hard to get much more than that from your explanation. — Jackson

No, I can tell you scientists aren't interested in that. It's not the role of science to try to paint a bigger picture of the reality, that's philosophy.
For example, I came up to a biology professor who was "debating" the notion of an individual, then I tried to get a definition out of him, which he couldn't produce, because he said it's too "complex". And there isn't any research on how to define that term, why? Because it's useless for biologists to define an individual, the use of that term isn't really important in their work. Why do I care about defining what an individual is? Because I care about the bigger picture, the representation of the world, that is a philosophical essence to me.

Please do. — Jackson

Okay, I will make another thread because I don't think this is really relevant to the main question anymore.

I'm trying my best to explain the method I would use, which would be based on scientific theories, but you do not seem to want to know more about it. Shall I explain it in more details? Would you actually want to debate a method that's been found by an independent thinker who does not want to practice philosophy as you know it?

"Can there be a proof of God?"

This is an interesting question, but even if we can find a proof that God exists, can we also find a proof of how God was created? What if another God created God? Can we find proofs for all the Gods? What if there is an infinite number of Gods?

I think if we find a proof, we wouldn't call it God anymore. And another thing we call God would appear, because the fact that it cannot be proven is part of the God concept...

I never said that. — Jackson

There :

Many analytic philosophers are very much interested in science. The philosophy of science is very popular. — Jackson

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy. — Jackson

You referred to these branches of philosophy when I exposed my ideas (but never succeeded to prove how it matches).

Yes, correct. — Jackson

Okay, but I don't want to follow these rules, that's the point of the topic.

What are these rules? — Jackson

Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion. — Jackson

That seems like a rule to me. I can't limit it to the physical world, that's what you said.

Sorry, I really do not understand this allegation. — Jackson

Well, you keep telling me my ideas already are part of philosophy, until the point where you say I can't do that (in the previous quote). Like a religious person would tell you everything is in the bible, except for what the bible doesn't allow.

In your wonderful, unreasoned, unsubstantiated, detached from the world, entirely independently found opinion. Well, since it is unwavering I wonder why you asked in the first place. I will now go do some serious work and leave you with your opinion. — Tobias

In summary you just said "I don't know how to respond but your opinion is wrong and I've got better things to do", thanks, very useful... We can feel the years of practice in the art of rhetoric here!

when somebody who thinks he is a scientist does philosophy — Tobias

You missed my whole point where I say I don't do philosophy, don't want to and never will, at least not as you define it, and not as it is defined in academia.

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... — Skalidris

There you go, I never tried to be good in philosophy.

Science only explains the motion of physical particles. Philosophy does not limit itself to explaining physical motion. — Jackson

Again, hey I don't want to follow the rules of philosophy, that's the whole point of the topic of the independent thinking. This whole questioning was about if we could come up with a better way to think about abstract topics.

You and Tobias seem to be so obsessed with philosophy and aren't able to see other possibilities that it starts to look like a religion.

There is a field in philosophy called experimental philosophy. — Jackson

Yeah okay, I didn't use the right words. I meant based on scientific theories that are based on experiments, so the field itself wouldn't do experiments. I don't see how you could hope to prove such abstract concepts with experiments...

what standard are you using to determine what actual knowledge is? — Jackson

Something that can't be compared to art xD That is created following a rigorous method, which you and Tobias seemed to say was absent in philosophy. And I would add it needs to be based on experiments to some extend, if possible, but that's just my rational/scientific side speaking.

What is your standard for philosophical knowledge? — Jackson

What do you mean?

They had the power of a whole scientific community behind them. The Ptolemaic cosmology was basically archaic. — Tobias

And before there was a community, there must have been one or several person having the same idea and then gather together. I never said the independent mind wouldn't try to find like-minded people to create a community. But if the whole method of the previous discipline is trash, yes, the independent mind alone beats the whole community in my opinion.

Indeed methods wise, philosophy is rather slapdash compared to the sciences. — Tobias

Okay good, then why not try to create an actual method? :p Why not try to produce actual knowledge? Why would we have a discipline in academia that's "slapdash"?

It is like saying that anyone can be an artist. That's fine. Now show your work to other people. Convince a gallery to put on a show.
Get people to write about. Same in philosophy. — Jackson

Art shows creativity, it does not produce knowledge, unlike philosophy... Art doesn't publish papers... Where do you live? Have you ever been in academia in philosophy? Because here in Europe, I can assure you there is a method and you wouldn't be able to publish anything if you don't follow it. They take that very seriously. They almost see it as a science, certainly not as art.

We cannot come up with a better way because minds stronger than ours have — Tobias

Um what? I don't even know how to answer to that, you're basically saying the strongest minds are in the past and not in the future, how does that even make sense? Why couldn't there be someone with a stronger mind (whatever that means)?

Why do you think one loner has the brainpower to challenge a whole community? — Tobias

Because it's been shown many times in history. A scientific mind could challenge the logic of the whole ecclesiastic community.

Besides, the philosophic method' does not exist. — Tobias

What... Okay try and say that to a philosopher that's been publishing in academia for a long time. There is literally a course about the philosophical method in the bachelor of philosophy... How do you think they decide who's going to be published and who's not? If there is no method, how can it be a discipline?

philosophy is mostly defined by the questions asked than by the method employed. — Tobias

Okay then anyone who's thinking about a philosophical topic is a philosopher... Yeah don't think so.

Many of those scientists are very intelligent people and might well produce worthwhile philosophy. As good as well known philosophers? Probably not because they simply lack practice in the field. — Tobias

But it wouldn't be the same discipline... And if they spent all their time thinking about a problematic, I don't see how they would have less practice, it just wouldn't be the same practice, but still about the same topic. This is why my question was "would they be wiser", and not "would they be better in philosophy"... Do you honestly think there is only one way to discuss these topics that are discussed in philosophy? And that the method in academia is the best way? If so, maybe tell me why you think it is so good, and why you think we could not come up with a better way.

I think you cannot learn to be critical by yourself. — Tobias

But who do you have to question the most in order to be critical? Yourself...

I think it is much more fruitful to be critical in discussions with others, with whom you can spar and grapple an who will take down your argument — Tobias

Yes, I agree, but you don't need philosophy for that.

Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers? — Tobias

I'm asking your opinion, not your prediction. Why would it be bollocks?

Those are not topics discussed in philosophy — Tobias

Okay, how about philosophy of mind and metaphysics? Better? The way you name it doesn't matter, a lot of philosophers studied the human behaviour (Nietzsche for example). But yes, using these terms, I already made other categories that suggest a broader understanding of the world. I basically mean any topic that can be discussed in philosophy with the philosophical method. And to me, human behaviour can, and it wouldn't be the same as in psychology.

Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime. — Tobias

Does that mean no one should start doing it?

But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training. — Tobias

What? No, that's not what I implied, it can't be compared, it's not the same field of study, how can one be better than the other? But yes you said it, no scientists are skilled to be philosophers if they haven't studied it, that's exactly my point, they would then be independent from it. But does that mean they can't discuss abstract concepts that are also discussed in philosophy? Does that mean they can't be critical? Do you think you can't learn to be critical by yourself?

Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand. — Tobias

No, no, I'm not saying they aren't wise. Maybe I did not understand what you meant in your previous post, but I was just specifying that you can do science without philosophy, except if you take a very vague definition of philosophy, which could basically mean that everyone is a philosopher.

Is your "independent thinker" aware of philosophical history or not, because I think that is a crucial point to consider — Janus

Okay, I'll try one more time. I've only been talking about an independent thinker from philosophy, meaning they could have knowledge about everything, science, psychology, history, but would discuss "philosophical" topics without following the method in philosophy, without trying to criticise previous philosophers. But yes, there's still a problem because philosophy is part of history, so they couldn't be totally unaware of it, let's just then say that they could study it to understand the historical context, but for example, if they're trying to figure out what consciousness means, they're not going to check out what philosophers say about it, or at least not as a basis of their work.

No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance. — Tobias

Now I feel like you're not making any effort to understand what I mean. Is an illiterate going to become a famous writer out of his pocket? Of course not. But imagine they're trying to make a faster vehicle. You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect).

Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance?

Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? — Tobias

Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example.

But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? — Tobias

They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method.

Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. — Tobias

Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays.

Who would be the better shoe maker, those who learn from prior shoemakers and copy their ways of working, gradually improving on their technique, or those who independently set out with a piece of leather and just begin crafting shoes? Well I tell you who will be, the former. — Tobias

Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages?

And of course you could judge all that by those few conversations... You, with your overview of their vision, you with your exalted knowledge of science, you could clearly see that those learned men wanted nothing of it and probably did not understand it. — Tobias

By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing...

It seems you arbitrarily define the term in a way that suits you — Tobias

Yes, that was arbitrarily but don't worry, I don't plan to take over the dictionary and change the definition, I'm just trying to communicate on a forum over the internet ;)

but most knowledge of what? and how do you compare my knowledge of law with your knowledge of physics? what is knowledge with least contradiction? So some contradiction in my knowledge is ok? But if there is inconsistency, in something I believe in, can I call it knowledge? You are simply being imprecise — Tobias

Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions.

No, the independent thinker just produces bollocky hogwash that he thinks "has scientific grounds", but is probably neither science nor philosophy and probably nothing remotely noteworthy. — Tobias

What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy?

It all depends on which "independent thinker" and which "academic philosopher" wouldn't you say? How can you generalize about such a comparison? — Janus

Yes, I meant a "perfect" version of both.

If you try to start from scratch you will probably repeat mistakes which have already been corrected within the tradition, or come up with ideas which are well-worn and could have been acquired with far less effort by being familiar with the tradition. Would it be wise not to avail oneself of the fruits of sustained philosophical efforts others have made? — Janus

Okay, imagine you live during the Middle Age and try to understand the world around you. Would you study the thoughts of the many ecclesiastics around you? Would you criticize bits of their theories or would you start from scratch? This example is a bit extreme but do you get my point? If you've found a method that is totally different from what already exists, it doesn't make sense to try and criticize a theory that uses another method. That's exactly why creation-evolution debates are pointless to me.

To produce original ideas there has to be a starting point i. the form of a contrast with and critique of an existing philosophical stance — Joshs

But what if the starting point isn't philosophy? It could still be original and wise, couldn't it?

Are scientific groups closer to wisdom than philosophic grounds? — Joshs

Do you mean : is science closer to wisdom than philosophy? Because that can't really be compared, it's not the same field of study. But if you mean : are theories with scientific grounds closer to wisdom than theories with philosophic grounds, for the same subject? To me, yes, because to be honest, can anyone really tell what the philosophical grounds are? It's never (rarely?) explicit. So how can we build a good logic if we don't even know where the theory came from? At least in science, we know we build it from experiments.