Answer each of these questions

File: 1461130726099s.jpg (5KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x247px

1. How is it possible to care about philosophy when you realise that you are literally flailing about within the infinitely large space of unfalsifiable possibilities? The only difference between STEM and other parts of philosophy is that in STEM the axioms and criteria for validity are more widely accepted. That's it.

2. What the hell can a non-STEM philosopher who works at Harvard or Oxford POSSIBLY have to say, that is either / both: non-trivial or uses axioms that are extremely widely accepted? It never happens!

3. Why do people pretend that "objective" morality exists? Why isn't it acknowledged that in a non-universally Christian society without a widespread belief in a god who is external to the universe, the idea of "objectivity" collapses in to a trivial "whatever I define it to be" (a human definition").

Replace "morality" and "objective" with "quiggle" and "bibble" respectively, two terms with arbitrary definitions. Does bibble quiggle exist? This shows how absurd people are in thinking that philosophers can have anything to say. I just provided two arbitrarily defined words that we can argue about for the next 2000 years? So why do philosophers not talk about bibble quiggle or "Does an objective list of rules for Football exist?"? That's easy to answer. (NOTE: THE ANSWER RELATES TO "PRACTICE OF PHILOSPHY", NOT "PHILOSOPHY" I'm not I shitting on reasoning itself). The answer is that philosophers are instantly drawn to the important sounding questions in order to gain attention and funding. They flee any field that has been colonised with scientists who use maths at a greater than high school level, even though they truthfully tell us that the scientific method is merely one out of infinitely many methods.