Philosophy Versus Science

[Alan V]

Yeah, now you're just going through the list and declaring that everything YOU consider worthwhile and successful isn't philosophy, and everything you consider to be not worthwhile is philosophy. 

To repeat (or summarize), my argument is that science, as a spin-off from philosophy, includes enough elements from philosophy as to no longer be accountable to philosophers. Science has effectively become something else, largely because of its requirements for testing experiments and supporting evidence.

I also think there are other spin-off disciplines which may not be accountable to philosophers. Those specializations, like science, are now in many ways too detailed and complex for philosophers to encompass. For instance, much of philosophical moral thinking is now embedded in our detailed laws. And scientists have all sorts of information and tools at their disposal for their work which most philosophers, unless they are also scientists, do not. Still, historical philosophers deserve praise for their successes, their offspring disciplines.

I personally am only interested in science and its own embedded philosophical principles because those are the ones which have been most productive. From that point of view, a lot of historical philosophy is now obsolete. We have verifiable answers to many of its questions and speculations.

However, I don't want to over-generalize. I do think that there are some spin-off disciplines, aside from science, which could use some philosophical tinkering. It's when theists use philosophy to claim that science is off-track that I especially take exception.