> Sometimes I think that is what philosophers are doing - feeling clever - perhaps as a defense against some negative inner problem (psychology is an outgrowth

> Sometimes I think that is what philosophers are doing - feeling clever - perhaps as a defense against some negative inner problem (psychology is an outgrowth of philosophy after all). All science is an outgrowth of philosophy. It's very frustrating when people look the obviously trivial and sometimes silly examples that philosophers use to elucidate a problem, and take it to mean that they are interested in trivial and silly things. Being right for the wrong reasons is a common and difficult problem, and some if the solutions to it a really insightful and powerful ideas. > Aside from that, it doesn't matter if your model is "grounded in reality" until it fails to work for you, at which time it can be helpful to realize your knowledge (model) needs adjustment. It might matter a great deal if your model is not grounded in reality - there are situations where that can kill you. It also seems like one of the fundamental aims of science, to have theories fail less often.