The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Tempus]

Just as bad / pseudo science is separated from good science by performing experiments using thorough testing methods to account for bias, equipment errors, etc, so too is bad / pseudo philosophy separated from good philosophy with careful examination. That is to say, science is done to prove other scientific findings incorrect and philosophy is done in a likewise manner.

Homeopathy, quantum healing, crystal healing, prayer, etc have all been associated with the terms medicine / health before. Should we therefore ditch the term "health" because of the unpleasant associations it has or because people might become attached to certain ideas about health? Homeopathic remedies are sometimes sold in the same stores as actual medicine. To avoid the association we could develop a phrase to replace health, such as: "practices, remedies and lifestyles which are conducive to promoting physical and psychological well-being". I would venture to say the reason we don't change the names of fields the moment they get associated with unpleasant things is because it makes more sense to address the problem (in this case homeopathic remedies) than to accomodate the problem by changing the name of the field it sometimes gets associated with. In this example the findings in the field(s) of medicine / health / biology would actually be used to expose homeopathy for the pseudo-science it is. Of course, to a layperson it may be difficult to distinguish between good science and bad science - it is the same for philosophy. The solution is education. We need to explain to people why this aspect of science or philosophy is better than the pseudo-science / philosophy opposed to it - not change / remove words.

I've explained above why I think changing / removing the word philosophy is a bad idea, but for the sake of argument, let's look at the implications of it being a good idea. Your criticism doesn't just apply to philosophy, but equally well to science in general, in addition to other subjects such as literature. You haven't explained why you don't demand the same things in those cases.

Yes. Philosophies come and go and can be held onto regardless of if they are shit or not. People make claims in the form of "ideas" and that is a much less complicated word and does NOT have the dogmatism of "philosophy", thus people are LESS likely to cling to it if it is a mere idea.

An assertion - back it up. Maybe people would become less attached to ideologies if they didn't have simple names to go by. I'll just note here that practising philosophy and practising a philosophy are two different things; I partially elaborate on this point further below. Trying to get people to refer to fields / practices / complex ideas, by expressing them longhand doesn't at all seem practical to me. Complex ideas are reduced to smaller words to express said ideas quickly. If you spelled out everything you meant to say you'd be there all day*. When you encounter an unfamiliar term, it makes more sense to learn that term, rather than complain that it exists. Once again, this criticism is applicable to almost any term.

*An absurd example below for my own amusement. As I've noted already there are more relevant examples such as health / medicine.
Person X: "Hey, let's go to the movies!"
Person Y: "The movies? Oh, you mean the theatre where the illusion of a moving image is achieved by projecting frames of film flitting past a light quickly onto a big screen from a high place at the back?"

Another assertion was that science is a tool. The scientific method is a tool, yes. "Science" can also refer to the general results of science (as discovered by the scientific method). Similarly, philosophy has methods / tools used to produce results, but "philosophy" can also be used similar to the term "theory" in science. That is to say, the words science and philosophy can both refer to the tools / methods / practices, as well as the results. In regards to philosophy, you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that it also has tools to produce its results. You only look at the results, rather than how they were attained and then assert it's tantamount to guesswork. Well, yeah, it'll look like guesswork if you're ignorant to how the conclusions are reached. So will science if you're ignorant of the usage of the scientific method.

Also, "philosophy" being a "stupid archaic word" isn't a criticism. To my knowledge, the word "logic" also comes from the same place and period.

---

I'm still not satisfied I was clear enough with the distinctions between usage of the word philosophy. At the risk of being tedious I'll try again:

Philosophy: an umbrella term referring to areas including - but not limited to - epistemology, logic, ethics. Comparable to the term "science" as it relates to physics, chemistry, biology, etc.
A philosophy: a specific worldview explaining (or seeking to explain) why/how things are the way they are and/or framework to live by, possibly (but not necessarily) dictating "shoulds". Somewhat comparable to a scientific "theory" (though an imperfect comparison), and possibly the term "ideology".

I welcome anyone more knowledgeable than I to challenge these definitions. I'm not entirely sure the latter one is very good...