Continued from here:
Objective Morality Without God
I don't intend to attack philosophy as a whole, just the majority of modern academic philosophy.
This is a great counter-argument, but not because I care about what people find intellectually stimulating. It's because the field of psychology genuinely is closely wound up in philosophy.
Contextualism influences ACT. Existentialism influences logotherapy. Determinism and naturalism both influence behaviorism.
However, I think this is more of a flaw in psychology than a benefit of philosophy. It demonstrates an ongoing problem within psychology to demonstrate and support its models empirically. Because when you can't actually demonstrate the truth of something, you BS it, and that's what most of philosophy does.
Critical thinking is fantastic! The fact that they learned critical thinking in philosophy courses is concerning. That should really be something they teach in science and history.
Then again, most of the people I know that take philosophy courses do not end up learning critical thinking from them, just as most people don't seem to learn it from science or math, either.
I really don't think confusing people into adopting nonsense like Platonic Idealism is teaching people to think in a better way. Philosophy can teach people to think better, but mostly I think it just makes poor thinkers more pretentious.
Philosophy has one of the lowest standards for peer review out of any academic discipline that I've seen. Have you read any of the rubbish being published by post-modernists?
I suppose you're right that you can't expect other philosophers to follow suite, but that's pretty much regardless of the quality of what you have to say. Only in philosophy have I seen people celebrate the lack of academic consensus as a virtue, where every attempt to build some sort of common ground is met with the incidental creation of more division in response and philosophies long considered dead are constantly resurrected. Could you imagine if scientists went back to considering miasma theory?
If you want strong ideas and truth, you turn to the natural sciences, which are in the habit of consistently debunking metaphysicians and ontologists to the point of making those entire fields of philosophy more or less irrelevant. The rest of academia has pretty much accepted naturalism, for instance; it is only the philosophers who obscure this with their diverse range of alternative metaphysical theories.
I would hardly call that a bastion of truth. It's a bastion of chaos.
Well, I'm certainly not arguing for the abolishment of philosophy! But if I was a public funder I would stop giving money to people publishing papers questioning their own existence and instead send it to food pantries and medical research.
I'll end with a synopsis of Alder's Razor: "If something cannot be settled by experiment or observation, then it is not worthy of debate"
This is because you have no grounds from which to debate from. When you do, then you are likely to be looking at science, not philosophy. Some philosophy is grounded, but the vast majority of it is not and fails this razor.
The thread title reminds me of a funny Lawrence Krauss once said in a discussion about the origins of the universe in a panel. One of the panel members was a philosopher who took serious issue with Krauss' "universe from nothing". Especially the "nothing" part.
Krauss said: "Well yea, I know that you philosophers are experts at 'nothing'... "