Philosophy Versus Science

[Belacqua]

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

That makes sense. Obviously, if the number is meaningful at all, it's referring to some significant quality.

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

I am skeptical that any standardized test can assign a number score to a person's intellectual humility or open-mindedness. These are things (as Aristotle points out) that are developed over a lifetime, and manifest themselves in ways that are individual and unpredictable. 

I would certainly hope that reading good books would help a person become aware of these virtues, and help think about how we can live them in the real world. This seems to work for some people, and not for others. 

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.

You're certainly right that there is not just one goal. Unless we state the goal so broadly as to be almost meaningless -- like "to understand our world better so that we can be better people." 

I've been thinking about philosophers I've read who don't contradict science in any way, don't encroach on scientists' territory, and don't attempt to do what science does better. Without looking over my notebooks, I'd say these criteria apply to (in no particular order):

Guy deBord, Slavoj Zizek, Pierre Bourdieu, Iris Murdoch, Alain Badiou, Richard Rorty, Robert Pippen, Andrew Bowie, Jean Baudrillard

If any of our anti-philosophy colleagues would like to take a page from any one of these writers' books and explain to me why it shouldn't be read, or why scientists are doing the same thing better, that would be very interesting to me.