Scientists have a very ill formed definition of philosophy. Philosophy

File: 1420245806426.jpg (71KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x500px

Scientists have a very ill formed definition of philosophy. Philosophy is a quest for objectivity just like science, that's why science was derived from philosophy. The philosophical method is much broader than the scientific one, applicable to human affairs and even to worlds that aren't actual, that's the power of introspection. They conclude that philosophical discourses are nonsensical because of their preconceived notion of sense data as the only source of objectivity, a notion derived from the philosophical method, after all you can't empirically verify that statement. But that assumption is what give scientific discourse the objective status, a assumption that every scientist in a lab makes even though they're not even aware of, the epistemic framework of science has a philosophical foundation.

If you as a scientist want to criticize philosophers try to analyze their claims from a philosophical perspective, because if your definition of objectivity is sense data then of course you're gonna think they're bullshitting you. But they're not, they're trying to do the same thing a chemist does in a lab, the problem is that is a lot harder to have that objective ground in philosophical subjects, you can't really use the sense data assumption when dealing with mental states now can't you?

And just to be fair, there's a lot of philosophies out there that are actually bullshit, because you don't really have a rigorous definition of objectivity like science does, then people go wild and claim they're telling the truth. But a scientist to deny the importance of philosophy is simply madness, science is permeated with philosophical assumptions, and being ignorant of them and philosophy in general may get you in epistemological troubles.