How worthless is Philosophy?

[vulcanlogician]

I haven't read much Plato,

If you're ever in the mood to read one of his (smaller) books, I recommend The Symposium... Avi Sharon translation... Avi Sharon or don't bother reading it at all, unless your reading it in Greek.

but the question of how worthless philosophy is may be something I have some thoughts about.  When we're talking about how much something is worth, different standards may be at play, and often people use the most disadvantageous standard when talking about something they don't like.  This leads to rather biased assessments.  An assessment can come from a purely subjective standpoint, as in chocolate ice cream being worthless because I don't like chocolate ice cream.  Alternatively one can try rational justification which ultimately leads to subjective values, but ones which are more universal.

Yeah. I see your point. Flat earther's don't care about what causes the phases of the moon. They are more inclined to value theories about the phases of the moon that would support their theories. While scientists would be prone to ask "what causes the phases of the moon" and then select a theory which conforms to whatever it is they learn.

But who is to say which is better? Either way it seems, you are left with some kind of bias. A bias which is imposed on the whole purpose of the investigation from the outset. We can ask who is being more honest, though. And I bet you we could figure something out in that regard!

Commonly, it is compared to the instrumental utility of science.  

It may be that science is so damned useful because it provides us with correct information rather than bullshit. I don't think the utility of science is some nebulous concept that exists out there in a vacuum.

I think this is a bit misleading as science itself is pretty useless except insofar as its accuracy in describing reality can be instrumentally useful in the development of technology.  Knowing Einstein's theories alone is pretty inutile.  Turning that knowledge into GPS satellites on the other hand, useful.  I think this distinction is overlooked in criticizing philosophy.

Science doesn't need practical value or applications. Sure, Einstein helps satellites give us accurate GPS data. But Einstein built on Newton. And sure, Newton has given us numerous practical applications for his theories. But Newton built on Galileo. Galileo simply said the planets revolve around the sun. And there were pretty much no practical applications we could use for that. It's just real facts about our solar system. But that was the first step toward creating a functional GPS system. But I don't think Galileo, as brilliant as he was, saw that his observations would help us get GPS in the future.

I think he just wanted to understand the universe. And that's where it all begins. People who just want to understand things. There is really no other utility required.

Curmudgeons may complain about the uselessness of post-modernism, yet use logic to do it.

Guilty as charged.

Science fans may argue the uselessness of philosophy, yet be the first to turn around and make use of the concept of falsification in their arguments.  And nobody serious would consider the question of a TOE without thinking of Godel being in the background.  And quantum physics is overflowing with philosophical questions.  These indirect uses of philosophy get dismissed by philosophy's critics and overlooked by the ignorant.

Man, it's nice to see you again, Jorm. I don't spend as much time as I used to online, but it's nice to say "hi." And I hope I see you around.