Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[inocente]

The ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one’s a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one’s theoretical models. - Lawrence M. Krauss
Alberti_Devoveo;10859448:

Is this statement provable?

I may believe and you may theorize that everything in the heavens is perfect, but Galileo’s telescope showed spots on the Sun. I may believe and you theorize that wave–particle duality is crazy and impossible but the two-split experiment shows otherwise.

So yes, where personal beliefs or pet theories conflict with empirical evidence, the evidence wins.

There’s an assumption that experiment is indeed possible, leaving open the question of whether personal beliefs and theories have value otherwise. Yes, since they guide us on the many occasions where we have to leap in the dark.

We can tend to cling to old beliefs and pet theories in the fact of evidence, although we’re also susceptible to naively accepting or misinterpreting results when they appear to justify our personal beliefs.

I think another remark by Krauss says all of this more clearly: The universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

 

[inocente]

Actually, the ultimate arbiter of truth has to be subjective in nature because purely objective entities or processes cannot arbitrate among or between anything.

Experiment relies upon the subjective experimenter to determine the conditions and variables and then the interpretation that follows. Ultimately, your view relies upon the assumption that “objective” reality is only objective and nothing more.

A simple experiment which easily disproves that is to place a kilo of plastic explosive between one’s knees, press the detonator button, and see if the power of one’s subjective thoughts can stop the explosion.

But don’t try that at home, objective reality always wins.

*Using a literalist interpretation of text, as a parallel or analogy, your “objective” approach rules out a priori that there is anything more than a literal level contained in the narrative. The problem is that this approach becomes self-fulfilling and self-authenticating if the narrative is consistent at a literal level.

In the case of science, “objective” means objective to the observing subject, which, is still an aspect of the observer’s subjective viewpoint. The observer has merely convinced themselves that their inherently subjective viewpoint actually “gives way” to an objective one, which is not necessarily the case.*

Other thought experiments include jumping off a high building, drinking two liters of nitric acid and play skipping with a live chain saw.

But don’t try them at home, subjective always loses.

*A literalist who is reading Shakespeare can still make sense of the words taken at their most basic literal level and they may find all kinds of confirmation from the text of the adequacy of this level of interpretation, but that is a kind of “blindness” to what is really going on in the narrative at other more symbolic levels.

In order to correct this blindness, it is necessary to demonstrate, first, that words can have multiple meanings and that the most basic meaning of any word is not the only possible one.
This may, very well, be true of natural phenomena. Yet, like the literalist, it could be difficult to convince someone who has worked out a coherent “literalist” interpretation of nature, that, while this interpretation is consistent with the facts it is only a “limited” view of the complete narrative. *

It’s hard to imagine a worse analogy.

A major value of science as a means to gain knowledge is the complete absence of a need to attribute ANY meaning or purpose whatsoever. This is an innovation which seems to have passed you by, but a long time back Newton was accused of introducing occult agencies when he refused to give any reason for gravity (links in my post #179).

Your literalists are actually the followers of Descartes, who lost the debate with Newton. You are arguing against an -ism which failed over 300 years ago.

Your statement assumes that the term “objective” has some meaning apart from the subjective observer. That may, in fact, be delusional. It is not clear, at least not to me, that “objective” has any such “external” reality. Meaning may, ultimately, only be subjectively possible and depicting some imagined external material reality as necessarily “objective” may be setting up a false dichotomy, one which the “facts” support, but taking too literalist a view of the “facts” may serve to mask out more important realities represented in the facts.

The don’t-try-these-at-home experiments prove there are objective facts. The main problem with your last sentence is its proximity to the definition of delusion - a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness. Better to not ascribe meaning at all than be delusional.

Meaning, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, while facts are facts. The universe is the way it is whether you like it or not.

And there you go again philosophizing about philosophy, i.e., using (or at least attempting to use) philosophy to debunk philosophy. In philosophy, that is called a self-contradiction because you are contradicting your own claim - you are using a philosophical argument to demonstrate what you claim is the apparent uselessness of philosophical arguments.

And there you go again claiming everything and anything as philosophy. When the guy in MacDonalds says 5 dollars please, he’s not making a philosophical argument, whether or not you agree the price.

 

[yppop]

The quote is from the article I linked - go to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Criticisms which summarizes the various criticisms of logical positivism. Scroll down to the last paragraph “Contemporary status within philosophy” for the quote. I think he was speaking of his Language, Truth and Logic when he was older.

Inocente
You missed the point of our discussion. I know where the citation came from, I read the same Wikipedia article. I was wondering if you knew what Ayers was alluding to when he made that statement? your answer to my question I believe is: I don’t know and that is okay because I don’t know either. The original issue being discussed here is the impact philosophy has on science as was precipitated by your remark about “ashtrays on motorbikes” (post 170). My point is that the principles of science that emerge from logical positivism are the principles by which modern science operates no matter how much the entire body of work is discredited. I introduced LogPos as one example of philosophy’s impact on science, a idea that you apparently dismissed with the ash tray comment.

Yes, but my impression is that Popper put into words what he saw, and this approach was not esteemed by “professional” philosophers, for instance: “Sir Karl Popper is not really a participant in the contemporary professional philosophical dialogue; quite the contrary, he has ruined that dialogue. If he is on the right track, then the majority of professional philosophers the world over have wasted or are wasting their intellectual careers. The gulf between Popper’s way of doing philosophy and that of the bulk of contemporary professional philosophers is as great as that between astronomy and astrology.” - W. W. Bartley

Of course he wrote about what he observed scientists doing. I couldn’t care less about what other philosophers feel about Popper, my point is that his falsification idea, whether or not he invented it, is used extensively in scientific circles as the method of verification. It is the second example I cite to argue that science is affected by philosophy. What argument do make that it doesn’t?

Newton ground his own mirrors, there isn’t much choice if you need equipment that doesn’t exist.

My point is that the amount of science that goes into what most people believe is a scientific project is small compared to the amount of technology. Whether or not technology is necessary is not the point. I know there is a interdependence between them. I am merely pointing out that technology is usually the bigger part and science usually gets all the credit.

I’d say the difference is that science studies the world to gain knowledge, while technology applies that knowledge for practical purposes. However I’d have thought that while they probably sit at separate tables in the restaurant at CalTech or MIT, there’s a continuum running from fundamental science through applied science to engineering.

Regarding the question posed in the OP “Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?” I assumed that you were one of the “some” people arguing for the sole source. I argue that Science is “philosophically” self restricted to studying a certain aspect (that which can be measured) of reality, creates only a small part of world knowledge, then subsumes the knowledge that creates technology, and grabs a lion’s share of the credit.

Your definition of science and technology is too general to be used in a meaningful discussion. I Hesitate to give a more extensive definition unless you make clear your exact position on the question in the OP.
Yppop

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The bottom line is that you cannot have science without philosophy. It was philosophers of science (like Francis Bacon in England) who helped to incorporate the modern scientific method.

Moreover, all logic (both inductive and deductive) is philosophical, not scientific. Mathematics is a form of logic, not science.

Science is a subset of Philosophy. Always has and always will be.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A simple experiment which easily disproves that is to place a kilo of plastic explosive between one’s knees, press the detonator button, and see if the power of one’s subjective thoughts can stop the explosion.

But don’t try that at home, objective reality always wins.

The above point, along with the rest of your post isn’t even worth a response. Whatever points you were trying to make have very little, if anything, to do with what I actually posted. I am not sure where to begin, but I am sure it is not worth my time to do so.

 

[inocente]

Inocente
You missed the point of our discussion. I know where the citation came from, I read the same Wikipedia article. I was wondering if you knew what Ayers was alluding to when he made that statement? your answer to my question I believe is: I don’t know and that is okay because I don’t know either.

The citations were pretty consistent but fear ye not, I found the source. It’s a conversation with Bryan Magee broadcast (I think) in 1978 which has found its way on to YouTube. The remark is at 6 minutes 30 in this clip, and yes, he’s speaking of logical positivism: youtube.com/watch?v=4cnRJGs08hE

*The original issue being discussed here is the impact philosophy has on science as was precipitated by your remark about “ashtrays on motorbikes” (post 170). My point is that the principles of science that emerge from logical positivism are the principles by which modern science operates no matter how much the entire body of work is discredited. I introduced LogPos as one example of philosophy’s impact on science, a idea that you apparently dismissed with the ash tray comment. *

Let’s take just the well known 20th century philosophers of science. They disagree with each other. Which is fine if their work forms a progression that’s homing in on something, but I’m not sure that it is. To make a name for herself a philosopher must to some extent argue against those who came before rather than merely interpret. The question is whether those 20th century philosophers have made a lasting contribution to science rather than just reflecting fashions.

Of course he wrote about what he observed scientists doing. I couldn’t care less about what other philosophers feel about Popper, my point is that his falsification idea, whether or not he invented it, is used extensively in scientific circles as the method of verification. It is the second example I cite to argue that science is affected by philosophy. What argument do make that it doesn’t?

Yes of course individual scientists may be influenced by whichever philosophers of science are currently in vogue, but that doesn’t answer questions such as whether their work has gained as a result.

*My point is that the amount of science that goes into what most people believe is a scientific project is small compared to the amount of technology. Whether or not technology is necessary is not the point. I know there is a interdependence between them. I am merely pointing out that technology is usually the bigger part and science usually gets all the credit.

Regarding the question posed in the OP “Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?” I assumed that you were one of the “some” people arguing for the sole source. I argue that Science is “philosophically” self restricted to studying a certain aspect (that which can be measured) of reality, creates only a small part of world knowledge, then subsumes the knowledge that creates technology, and grabs a lion’s share of the credit.*

There is a tendency to group these things together, and this Wikipedia article goes so far as to list accountancy as an applied science (it also lists the philosophy of science as a branch of science). But given that high technology is not even conceivable without modern science, I’m not sure there’s an issue.

Your definition of science and technology is too general to be used in a meaningful discussion. I Hesitate to give a more extensive definition unless you make clear your exact position on the question in the OP.

I didn’t attempt a definition but just limited myself to the difference between science and technology.

The OP says “Science is limited to the study of the material world. We’re only able to study what we are allowed to study, nothing more. Why do people insist that science is the be all end all of knowledge and information? Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?”

I’m strongly against the idea that science is incompatible with belief in God, but the empirical evidence produced by science is incompatible with many old beliefs.

Since truth cannot contradict truth, those old beliefs have always been false but many still cling to them. So I thought it would be interesting to argue purely for science and see where it took me, my guiding text being 1 Cor 1:18-31. Paul’s hyperbola (“Where is the philosopher of this age?”) is for faith in Christ crucified, not in dry rational “proofs” of the nature of God, so it’s worth asking the question: are modern philosophers (after science split away) actually a source of knowledge any more?

 

[inocente]

The above point, along with the rest of your post isn’t even worth a response. Whatever points you were trying to make have very little, if anything, to do with what I actually posted. I am not sure where to begin, but I am sure it is not worth my time to do so.

No, your argument wasn’t difficult to understand but it provides no means to avoid the anarchic banner of anything goes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente
**
so it’s worth asking the question: are modern philosophers (after science split away) actually a source of knowledge any more? **

Of course they are. Why wouldn’t they be? Your scientism slip is showing.

Are you suggesting that when modern science science split from philosophy and set itself above philosophy (which it never really did) it took politics, ethics, epistemology, esthetics, logic, metaphysics, history, natural theology etc. with it?

How totally arrogant is that?

By the way, do you consider atheism itself to be a science or a philosophy?. It is obviously a philosophy. Many scientists are atheists. If the source of their atheism is science, not philosophy, what kind of logical pretzel is that?

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, your argument wasn’t difficult to understand but it provides no means to avoid the anarchic banner of anything goes.

Oh, no! Anarchy! GASP!

It appears that you mentally live on an either/or teeter totter and assume, again wrongly, that any point you make is a knock-down argument against all other viewpoints to which you don’t subscribe.

On the faith/reason issue you have been arguing that reason (philosophy) should be ignored and even denigrated, yet you use faulty logic to make your point.

You have argued that your Baptist orientation is based simply on faith. That would appear problematic because Christianity makes truth claims, but according to your strict naturalism, these cannot be verified by experiment. That would seem to leave you in a bit of a pickle. How are faith claims established, then? By appeal to emotion? That such beliefs are “comforting?” That would seem an even more direct route to anarchism.

What philosophy tells us is that your teeter totter perspective is faulty because a point made against an alternative viewpoint is insufficient to establish your own POV. Yet, that is your bread and butter, as far as defending your perspective goes.

I have, in past posts, argued that science can only address what is and what has been in terms of making verifiable statements about what is or will transpire. The problem is - and it is one you completely ignored - that as humans we are in the predicament that we must make decisions about the way things should be. Yet your naturalism cannot provide an iota of proof regarding what ought to be. So, apparently, you are in an anarchic bind, either way.

You seem to be unwilling to admit that to yourself and instead wear blinkers that filter the world into two distinct realms: faith and science (and never the twain shall meet.) You have just conveniently made the faith side personal and therefore, you presume, untouchable by argument.

All the while, you have missed the fact that your perspective proposes a metaphysic, no matter how vociferously you deny it. The problem, again, is that in denying it, you presume some kind of immunity from philosophy, which is far from the case. You have just saddled yourself with an inadequate philosophy and are in denial regarding its logical implications.

 

[inocente]

Of course they are. Why wouldn’t they be? Your scientism slip is showing.

Are you suggesting that when modern science science split from philosophy and set itself above philosophy (which it never really did) it took politics, ethics, epistemology, esthetics, logic, metaphysics, history, natural theology etc. with it?

How totally arrogant is that?

I’d say it’s very arrogant to ask a question and presume the answer. Known in the trade as ad hominem - not only a fallacy, also an irrelevance.

But to just take the first of your examples:* Politics (from Greek: politikos, meaning “of, for, or relating to citizens”) is the art or science of influencing other people on a civic or individual level.*

Known in the trade as shooting yourself in the foot.

By the way, do you consider atheism itself to be a science or a philosophy?. It is obviously a philosophy. Many scientists are atheists. If the source of their atheism is science, not philosophy, what kind of logical pretzel is that?

Atheism is a lack of belief in any deities. The atheist scientists I know of tend not to believe either through lack of interest or what they see as lack of evidence.

No doubt some scientists like to wear a bow-tie, and now you’ll demand to know if bow-tie wearing is a science or a philosophy.

I’d suggest scientists’ personal beliefs are irrelevant here, unless you want to argue that they’ve been browbeaten into atheism by philosophers of science.

 

[inocente]

It appears that you mentally live on an either/or teeter totter and assume, again wrongly, that any point you make is a knock-down argument against all other viewpoints to which you don’t subscribe.

On the faith/reason issue you have been arguing that reason (philosophy) should be ignored and even denigrated, yet you use faulty logic to make your point.

You have argued that your Baptist orientation is based simply on faith. That would appear problematic because Christianity makes truth claims, but according to your strict naturalism, these cannot be verified by experiment. That would seem to leave you in a bit of a pickle. How are faith claims established, then? By appeal to emotion? That such beliefs are “comforting?” That would seem an even more direct route to anarchism.

If you wind back, I said personal beliefs are essential unless they conflict with evidence, then evidence wins. But since for some mystic reason you mention my Baptist “orientation”, let me point out that the Vatican Observatory is not a million miles away from me:

At the council of Trent, at the height of the protestant reformation just about twenty years before the birth of Galileo, the Catholic Church had solemnly declared that only the church could authentically interpret the bible and that private interpretation was forbidden. Now in 1616, just as the controversy about a sun-centered Copernican universe was heating up, the church’s holy office declared that Copernicanism was formally heretical because it contradicted many passages in the bible (e.g. Joshua 10: 11-13, in which the sun stops moving in the sky). Galileo had already written several essays on the interpretation of the bible in which he essentially said that the bible was written to teach us how to go to heaven and not how the heavens go. In these documents he essentially anticipated by about 400 years what the Catholic Church would teach about the interpretation of the bible, but he did so privately.

*What philosophy tells us is that your teeter totter perspective is faulty because a point made against an alternative viewpoint is insufficient to establish your own POV. Yet, that is your bread and butter, as far as defending your perspective goes.

I have, in past posts, argued that science can only address what is and what has been in terms of making verifiable statements about what is or will transpire. The problem is - and it is one you completely ignored - that as humans we are in the predicament that we must make decisions about the way things should* be. Yet your naturalism cannot provide an iota of proof regarding what ought to be. So, apparently, you are in an anarchic bind, either way.

Oh, so was Jesus of Nazareth a philosopher then? St Peter? Luke? Isaiah? I guess Paul comes closest as he’d actually read some.

In 1796 medic and scientist Edward Jenner tested the first ever vaccine, against smallpox, and in 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox dead. In 200 years lots of “ought” with nary a philosopher on the horizon.

So out of the wide choice of systems of ethics (just for starters consequentialism, deontology, divine command, epicureanism, hedonism, postmodern, pragmatism, relativism, role ethics, utilitarianism and virtue ethics), how many say we ought not to use condoms, or does that put you in an anarchic bind either way?

You seem to be unwilling to admit that to yourself and instead wear blinkers that filter the world into two distinct realms: faith and science (and never the twain shall meet.) You have just conveniently made the faith side personal and therefore, you presume, untouchable by argument.

Nope, as I said to yppop earlier truth cannot contradict truth, although I do think neurotheology (neuroscientific explanation of religious experience) is currently lacking some quality control what with Persinger’s god helmet and the like.

All the while, you have missed the fact that your perspective proposes a metaphysic, no matter how vociferously you deny it. The problem, again, is that in denying it, you presume some kind of immunity from philosophy, which is far from the case. You have just saddled yourself with an inadequate philosophy and are in denial regarding its logical implications.

Then everyone including a three-year old is a metaphysicist, and the term becomes meaningless, a name for a bag of cognitive processes in all humans, and for all we know, dolphins and crows. I’m arguing that modern professional philosophy can’t rid the world of disease, can’t put a man on the Moon and can’t explain consciousness. It can’t feed the poor, doesn’t look good hanging on a wall, you can’t dance to it, it doesn’t keep you warm in winter. The song is called War, huh, what is it good for only after the producer turned down Philosophy, huh, what is it diddily goodily doddily.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In 1796 medic and scientist Edward Jenner tested the first ever vaccine, against smallpox, and in 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox dead. In 200 years lots of “ought” with nary a philosopher on the horizon.

So out of the wide choice of systems of ethics (just for starters consequentialism, deontology, divine command, epicureanism, hedonism, postmodern, pragmatism, relativism, role ethics, utilitarianism and virtue ethics), how many say we ought not to use condoms, or does that put you in an anarchic bind either way?

Nope, as I said to yppop earlier truth cannot contradict truth, although I do think neurotheology (neuroscientific explanation of religious experience) is currently lacking some quality control what with Persinger’s god helmet and the like.

Then everyone including a three-year old is a metaphysicist, and the term becomes meaningless, a name for a bag of cognitive processes in all humans, and for all we know, dolphins and crows. I’m arguing that modern professional philosophy can’t rid the world of disease, can’t put a man on the Moon and can’t explain consciousness. It can’t feed the poor, doesn’t look good hanging on a wall, you can’t dance to it, it doesn’t keep you warm in winter. The song is called War, huh, what is it good for only after the producer turned down Philosophy, huh, what is it diddily goodily doddily.

I am surprised that you don’t have the same disrespect for all human endeavors that do not provide some practical utility. Music, art and theatre should all be a waste of time according to you because they have not attained some arbitrary practical goal that you designate to be important. Yet you, quite arbitrarily, value music, for example, because you can dance to it or art because you can sit and look at it. Interesting that philosophy should not be acceptable, by your standards, for the virtually the same reasons. Music does, after all, engage some to dance as philosophy engages others to think. Yet you arbitrarily find philosophy worthless, while music passes your muster. Apparently, it’s just the process of thinking that is a waste of time for you.

The question might be asked, "Why are gyrations of the body any more valuable than gyrations of the mind? To be consistent, you should have the same attitude towards music and the arts as you do towards philosophy. Of course, being arbitrary and relativistic regarding thought is your prerogative since logical consistency is inconsequential as far as you are concerned and all thinking quite a waste of time. I am amazed that you were unable to think through the repercussions of your “philosophy” and remain so consistently inconsistent.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then everyone including a three-year old is a metaphysicist, and the term becomes meaningless, a name for a bag of cognitive processes in all humans, and for all we know, dolphins and crows.

As far as a three year old can develop a “world view,” they are doing metaphysics. Do you have a problem with that?

To take a parallel, would you also denigrate “walking” by a three year old because it is not the kind of walking that leads to some useful technological advance? Perhaps, only the walking of Sir Edmund Hillary is “walking” of any merit because it an achievement of note? Or is all walking just meaningless - consistent with your above post - because anyone can do it, including crows, dogs and penguins? Unfortunately, though, dolphins can’t. Does that put you off, some? Or does the fact that dolphins, at least, can’t walk lend some credibility and meaning to walking for you?

Again, I am only trying to understand what seems to me to be an arbitrary and inconsistent “philosophy” - despite your denial and repudiation of the term - that you are trying to dispense on this forum.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In 1796 medic and scientist Edward Jenner tested the first ever vaccine, against smallpox, and in 1980 the World Health Organization declared smallpox dead. In 200 years lots of “ought” with nary a philosopher on the horizon.

The above point should be taken as proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. Let’s distinguish between Jenner’s world view, his ethical position and his knowledge of science and medicine. Jenner’s knowledge of science and medicine, in and of itself, did not lead him to pursue finding and testing a vaccine against smallpox. If Jenner’s ethical and metaphysical views had been different, the very same scientific facts could have led him to develop, alternatively, deadlier biological strains of the virus. There is nothing in the science that logically tells a scientist what he ought or ought not do with the knowledge s/he possesses. It is their metaphysical perspective and ethical beliefs stemming from their metaphysics that leads scientists towards what they “ought” to do with their knowledge gained. This is a very basic point and you keep missing or ignoring it. Either you are being intentionally daft on this (ignorance is bliss, I guess) and therefore think your point of view is immune to critique or you honestly do not get it, which, coincidentally, could be why you don’t see value in philosophy, i.e., you don’t understand what philosophy actually is.

 

[tonyrey]

…There is nothing in the science that logically tells a scientist what he ought or ought not do with the knowledge s/he possesses. It is their metaphysical perspective and ethical beliefs stemming from their metaphysics that leads scientists towards what they “ought” to do with their knowledge gained…

“ought” is a non-scientific term!

 

[tonyrey]

Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread:

“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”

Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.

“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.

No wonder philosophy is despised! I wonder what science is based on… Spiritual things?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I don’t think anyone genuinely argues that science is the only source of knowledge, since the statement itself is not scientific and would be required to be knowledge for the claim to be true. However, I think far too many people believe that empiricism is the only sure epistemological method (bar maths and logic). It might be a result of scepticism in philosophy or just poor education. Its obviously a problematic position, since we have all sorts of knowledge that are not based on these methods.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you wind back, I said personal beliefs are essential unless they conflict with evidence, then evidence wins.

This, too, is problematic. How do you begin to formulate personal beliefs without any criteria except that they do not conflict with evidence? Surely, there must be some positive non-evidential way for you to determine the truth value of personal beliefs? Otherwise, almost anything could be subscribed to according to this “personal philosophy.” Absence of evidence is not a reliable basis upon which to formulate personal “supernatural” beliefs - which seem to be part of your belief system. It is possible to dream up all kinds of supernatural beings that are immune to evidential discredit, but that does not mean such beliefs are acceptable.
There must be some other non-evidential criteria by which you begin to formulate and then judge the adequacy of your personal beliefs and that, most people, except you, would call doing “philosophy” which is the very important enterprise of adding logical structure to one’s reasoning, so thinking does not “go madly off in all directions,” untethered.
Contrary to your assertions, you must tacitly “do philosophy” at some level, you just don’t recognize that you do.

 

[inocente]

I am surprised that you don’t have the same disrespect for all human endeavors that do not provide some practical utility. Music, art and theatre should all be a waste of time according to you because they have not attained some arbitrary practical goal that you designate to be important. Yet you, quite arbitrarily, value music, for example, because you can dance to it or art because you can sit and look at it. Interesting that philosophy should not be acceptable, by your standards, for the virtually the same reasons. Music does, after all, engage some to dance as philosophy engages others to think. Yet you arbitrarily find philosophy worthless, while music passes your muster. Apparently, it’s just the process of thinking that is a waste of time for you.

The question might be asked, "Why are gyrations of the body any more valuable than gyrations of the mind? To be consistent, you should have the same attitude towards music and the arts as you do towards philosophy. Of course, being arbitrary and relativistic regarding thought is your prerogative since logical consistency is inconsequential as far as you are concerned and all thinking quite a waste of time. I am amazed that you were unable to think through the repercussions of your “philosophy” and remain so consistently inconsistent.

Your assumptions sent you off on a wild goose chase.

All pursuits may be valuable. But the OP is about sources of knowledge, so I’m not debating whether Bach is better than Beyonce or any such subjective opinion.

My case is that the progress made by science has demonstrated conclusively that human reason in the absence of evidence is highly fallible. Therefore most if not all philosophers, who don’t test their ideas against objective evidence, are almost certainly not producing anything of lasting value, they are just adding to the confusion of competing -isms, they are at most one-hit wonders.

 

[inocente]

As far as a three year old can develop a “world view,” they are doing metaphysics. Do you have a problem with that?

To take a parallel, would you also denigrate “walking” by a three year old because it is not the kind of walking that leads to some useful technological advance? Perhaps, only the walking of Sir Edmund Hillary is “walking” of any merit because it an achievement of note? Or is all walking just meaningless - consistent with your above post - because anyone can do it, including crows, dogs and penguins? Unfortunately, though, dolphins can’t. Does that put you off, some? Or does the fact that dolphins, at least, can’t walk lend some credibility and meaning to walking for you?

Again, I am only trying to understand what seems to me to be an arbitrary and inconsistent “philosophy” - despite your denial and repudiation of the term - that you are trying to dispense on this forum.

Please see previous post. By making assumptions rather than first checking for evidence, you just went off on another goose chase. Thanks for proving my point.

(And yes, I would have a problem spending tax dollars on guys in ivory towers behaving like three-year olds. If the output from professional philosophers really can’t be distinguished from a three-year old’s, I rest my case, thanks for proving it for me.)