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

[Angrboda]

Defining philosophy without implicitly begging the question pro or con may be impossible. If you define it such that it is exclusive from science, that's an obvious question beg. If you define it as something which is clearly inextricably linked to science, that's begging the question the other way. It also becomes problematic when one attempts to define science. Polymath's position seems to be that there is a science that consists of concrete acts. That seems to exclude the linguistic activity typically known as scientific discourse. I'd say that is a loaded definition (not assuming that is Polymath's position here; just pointing out a difficulty). I have my own dog in the fight. I believe the Duhem-Quine hypothesis is true, that one cannot test scientific hypotheses in isolation, but only as a combination of the hypothesis and a bundle of auxiliary assumptions. I would argue that it is not possible to exclude enough of philosophy from that bundle to make a clear separation. An example of that seems to be Polymath's assertion that physicalism has been tested. If physicalism is a metaphysical position, and not a scientifically tested one, then the idea of separating physicalism from philosophy seems untenable.