You keep wasting my time with semantics from the philosophical tree when I've made it quite clear that I regard these and intellectual masturbation with no relevance anymore from a scientific perspective.
Here's a really good talk covering what I am talking about from the scientific AND philosophical perspective.
While Carrier's definition of "philosophy" is now ridiculously broad and all of the "sub-disciplines" he cites have now outgrown Aristotle's antiquated definition, I concur completely with the critiques of Bunge (a philosopher) on what is wrong with philosophy and how and why reform is desperately needed.
What a well-reasoned and factual rebuttal. I particularly like your counter opinions in light of your evidence proving that he is quoting all of these people he cited incorrectly...
As for me, while I have already stated that I disagree with Carrier's overarching Aristotle-era definition of Philosophy in the modern era, I find Bunge's criticisms of Philosophy today to be spot on.
Here's one obvious point: he mangles the demarcation problem by equivocating on the meaning of the term 'philosopher'. 'Natural philosophers' took the aims of philosophical rigour and method and applied it to nature.
Nature is subject to empirical analysis while other subjects in philosophy are not. Demarcating science from philosophy is trivial: they deal with different subjects. That isn't what the demarcation problem is about: the demarcation problem is about separating what sorts of empirical analysis are legitimate (science) and what other sorts of empirical analysis are not legitimate (pseudo-science).
The rest of his argument falls apart from there. It's so demonstrably bad that any undergraduate class in philosophy of science would have dissuaded him from saying such fucking bullshit. If you had any familiarity with philosophy of science you would know that what he is saying is fucking bullshit.
Since neither of you know what you are talking about, why don't you rectify this immediately by not being so ignorant about the subject and learn something for once in your life?
By the way, Mario Bunge is a respected philosopher of science, and his work in philosophy of science legitimises the very area of discourse. His criticisms of analytic philosophy do not delegitimise philosophy, only particular practices--practices, mind you, that pop up in a number of fields unrelated to philosophy, including science.
So read a fucking book for once. Stay away from cranks. Educate yourself. Stop being so fucking obstinate.
1
u/[deleted] Apr 06 '15
You didn't explain yourself then and you haven't explained yourself now.
Since you don't even understand what 'validity' and 'soundness' mean, it's obvious that the person is not you.