[Serious] Generally speaking, is philosophy a worthwhile subject of study?

[vulcanlogician]

Polymath has a point in that there is a descriptive element to Popper's work.

Are you sure he was being descriptive on this point? Falsification isn't an intuitive idea.

I think Popper was being descriptive. He wasn't telling scientists what to do. He was analyzing what they do and came up with falsification. But falsification DOES describe what science was already doing prior to Popper's thinking about the matter.

And modern science is still not set up this way—you're insensitivised to discover something new not falsify something old.

We should start a thread on this topic. As I understand it was first discovered in psychology and (maybe) it is especially problematic in that field (?)