Philosophy Versus Science

[GrandizerII]

I don’t understand what you mean by “failing to show any of their work”? The data has been linked to (though you may have to pay to access some of it, like they did), the methodology is described in Sections 4 and 5, the code they used for analysis is linked to, results are reported and analysed, and there are tables and diagrams and an appendix.

I mean, sure, they don’t show the statistical tests in full detail, but that’s standard, and there may be some word limit imposed anyway.

Again, any researcher who is suspicious can test their findings using the same data and details they have provided.

I don't think the research paper tells us anything important. 

It's an attempt to claim that the successes of one field can be identified and quantified according to the values of a different field. 

The things which can be (allegedly) identified and quantified through this study are not the things that are important about philosophy. Philosophy is mostly about wisdom. It's about how a person lives. A wise man may or may not do well on standardized tests. He may be too interested in his passionate endeavors even to take a standardized test. 

So I think it's a category error. 

If practice discussing philosophical issues with smart, temperate, and generous people does increase a person's score on some standardized test, that is a fortunate side-effect, but unrelated to the goal of philosophy.

It's not about the scores themselves, it's what those scores represent.

And how would you define wisdom if not in terms of such dispositions as intellectual humility and open-mindedness?

Again, the point of the study is to show the benefits of studying psychology (at least at the undergraduate level). Not just with regards to intellectual abilities, but also with regards to virtues that surely you would consider to be part of wisdom?

And what is exactly the goal of philosophy? I don't agree there is this one ultimate goal of philosophy that philosophers all/mostly agree on.