(March 5, 2013 at 11:33 pm)whateverist Wrote: I would have thought such boasts were on par with those who claim to know what 'the facts' are according to science. Science doesn't trade in facts, it is about establishing which theories are best supported by evidence. It doesn't declare winners. Like science, philosophy is an approach to certain questions - generally ones too poorly defined to be decided in a straightforward manner. I'm unaware of any volume containing the settled positions to these questions which have become the orthodoxy of philosophy and endorsed by philosophers everywhere.
There isn't any such orthodoxy in science either - but there is an accepted methodology to both. In science the mode of inquiry is evidence, in philosophy it is reason or logic. The way that works is you start with certain premises and work out your answers from there. So when you are talking about the "most fundamental questions in philosophy" - you are referring to questions which would not anything for granted. Drew's questions assume a lot of things such as existence of universe, existence of causality, our existence etc. and therefore are not basic. The basic branch of philosophy would be metaphysics which deals with questions like "what exists" and "what is its nature".
By the way, is the consistent misspelling of my name a mistake or a joke that has gone over my head?
