Every discussion about philosophy seems to be either discussing

>>2536671
>How the hell have people not realised that all philosophical axioms and criteria (and criteria for criteria) are arbitrarily chosen?
Everybody knows this. Most of the argument is trying to convince people to accept your axioms

>>2536671
never understood this accusation of "intellectual masturbation" that non-philosophers level at philosophy
I have my theories ofc but what do you mean by it, OP?

Just because you don't like the reasons or disagree with them doesn't mean they don't exist. There's nothing arbitrary at all about the way philosophical principles are chosen.

Falsifiability is not a very good metric of determining which ideas are acceptable either, because "falsification" is not a good way of figuring out which things are true and which aren't. Here's a hypothetical for you--let's say you have an apparatus that is designed for the purpose of measuring the acceleration of objects in a vacuum, and you drop a quarter inside the apparatus. The output data is that the quarter accelerated towards the ground at 9.5 m/s^2.

Have you just falsified the numerical claims of the theory of gravity?

>>2537948
Falsification is useful for determining between theories, if a theory is falsifiable that means there is some way to show that it is wrong, so it is worth investigating. If a theory is not falsifiable that means that no matter how you investigate it, you won't be able to determine if it was accurate or not. If a theory is not falsifiable it shows that it's useless to investigate it.

>>2538003
1. If philosophical views are unfalsifiable, then the view that philosophical views are unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable, because it is a philosophical view (it's a view in metaphilosophy).
2. Either (a) you're talking about falsification in the Popperian sense (deductive experimental falsification), in which case that was refuted by Quine among others and philosophy of science has moved on; or (b) you're talking about falsification in some other sense, in which case falsification could be non-deductive and non-experimental, so showing that a theory is unfalsifiable involves showing not just that it can't be confirmed false with certainty by experiment but showing that it can't be rendered unfeasible or worse than its alternatives by any means of argument or reasoning whatsoever.
3. On 2b, you can't find out if a theory is falsifiable or not without investigating.

>>2538121
> then the view that philosophical views are unfalsifiable is unfalsifiable

Not unless this is just a flat out true statement.

The statement that there are unicorns that are invisible and don't interact with anything all around us is unfalsifiable and it can be proved to be unfalsifiable. The same logic applies for philosophical views or religion.

>>2538149
Sorry, not "not unless," I meant to say "not if."

>>2538149
>Not if this is just a flat out true statement.
Why? Are you saying "true" implies "falsifiable"?

>The statement that there are unicorns that are invisible and don't interact with anything all around us is unfalsifiable
Maybe in the Popperian sense (though honestly it's debatable), but I addressed that sense already.
>The same logic applies for philosophical views or religion.
This wouldn't follow even if I granted the Popperian unfalsifiability of the unicorn statement.