Typically , the attitude comes from a comparison with science: Science is a few hundred years old, and has solved many problems. Philosophy is a few thousand years and has barely solved anything. So science is good and philosophy is bad? So philosophically would be better if it were more like science? so the comparison is fair?
If it were possible to apply the scientific method to philosophy , and suddenly start getting much better results, philosophy would indeed be remiss .. it would have a fixable problem that has never been fixed.
On the other hand, if philosophical problems are different to, and harder than scientific problems, the problem could be intrinsic and unfixable. That alternative view is rarely given consideration in the rationalsphere.
To know , rather than believe, that philosophy is fixably bad, you need to compare both explanations, not assume the first.
And doing philosophy in a more formal, science like way has been tried: analytical philosophy is about a hundred years old. The experiment has been performed,and didn’t speed up philosophy hugely. Is there a way to lean further into doing philosophy like science? Pearl and Kahneman, maybe?
How do you know philosophy is fixably bad?
Typically , the attitude comes from a comparison with science: Science is a few hundred years old, and has solved many problems. Philosophy is a few thousand years and has barely solved anything. So science is good and philosophy is bad? So philosophically would be better if it were more like science? so the comparison is fair?
If it were possible to apply the scientific method to philosophy , and suddenly start getting much better results, philosophy would indeed be remiss .. it would have a fixable problem that has never been fixed.
On the other hand, if philosophical problems are different to, and harder than scientific problems, the problem could be intrinsic and unfixable. That alternative view is rarely given consideration in the rationalsphere.
To know , rather than believe, that philosophy is fixably bad, you need to compare both explanations, not assume the first.
And doing philosophy in a more formal, science like way has been tried: analytical philosophy is about a hundred years old. The experiment has been performed,and didn’t speed up philosophy hugely. Is there a way to lean further into doing philosophy like science? Pearl and Kahneman, maybe?
@Mo Putera
Lots of people now know Pearl and Kahneman. What have they achieved?