How much do you like philosophy?

[Napoléon]

I really didn't think I had to spell out the absurdly obvious.

Well if the absurdly obvious answers the actual question I asked in the first place I'd say you do.

Obvious relevant question: "What is truth?"

Obvious relevant question: "What is knowledge?/What does it mean to know something?"

Obvious relevant question: "What, if anything, guides human reasoning?" (i.e is it free from emotions, or could it be even in principle?)

Obvious relevant question: "Can we know the world as it is entirely apart from subjective human experience?"

--

I thought the answers made unmistakably clear what they were answering.

Well, for starters, a couple of those weren't exactly obvious (I'll admit I'm having a dumb day so apologies if I'm the only one who thinks so). For seconds, I'd argue that for each and every question you could have a wildly different answer, and each one would be just as philosophically accurate (or true/viable whatever word you wish to use) as the next. And this is my problem with philosophy in general.

For instance, for "What is knowledge", you say "knowledge is a justified true belief" as the definitive answer. As though there are no others.

My contention? There could be many different answers to this question of "What is knowledge", and in fact philosophers themselves aren't in agreement over this very thing.

The definition of knowledge is a matter of ongoing debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[3] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the evidence for the belief necessitates its truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

Yeah I'm quoting a wiki article. So what.

My point is, philosophy is great posing questions, exploring the possible answers and coming up with theories. I'm not here bashing it for that, my only main gripe with philosophy as a form of discerning anything true about the world is that it can't really give you a definitive answer. It's only really good at asking questions. Science on the other hand, can provide you with answers, by way of testable, provable and predictable hypothesis. Can you 'test' the answers philosophy gives? Can you prove them? Can you predict results with them? Not from any brand of philosophy I've seen. So in essence, I'm not all that interested in any answers philosophy does attempt to give me.