> In my personal experience, roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash (give or take), but the remaining 10% are extremely interesting and worth reading

> In my personal experience, roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash (give or take), but the remaining 10% are extremely interesting and worth reading both by philosophers and people outside the field. I came to the conclusion that philosophy has such a negative image among many empirical and structural scientists because philosophers don't clearly distance themselves from this kind of crap. So even "serious" philosophers are considered as part of this crap to the outside. Physicists on the other hand are often very outspoken about "crackpot physics" (mathematicians [I am one] are in my mind a little less outspoken, but still very clear in distancing themselves from crackpot mathematics). Having voluntarily heard two lecture series of philosophy, I have to admit that there are some questions that philosophers consider that are actually exciting. But the large problem that I see is that (in opposite to structural or empirical science) the philosophers working on the individual isolated topics seem to have no desire to unite their individual parts into a big united theory (like the abstract and very encompassing frameworks in mathematics or the attempts in physics to unite general relativity with quantum field theories).