3 ms·
> like laymen are trying to science without getting their hands dirty and while trying to sound fancy. I know that's the wrong take, but I can't get over it. I
by mcphage 4y ago
> like laymen are trying to science without getting their hands dirty and while trying to sound fancy. I know that's the wrong take, but I can't get over it.
It's actually the reverse—multiple sciences started out as subfields of philosophy, that got useful enough on their own that they were peeled out into their own thing. It would be more useful to think of as philosophy as a soup of proto-sciences that are developing, that some might prove useful, and some might die out.
That's not really all philosophy is, but at least it's a more historically accurate way to look at it.
- justinclift 4y ago> that got useful enough Does that mean "they figured out ways to make it reproducible and/or validate it"? Whereas the other subfields of philosophy don't (yet) have ways to fully validate them, and/or make them reproducible?
- mcphage 4y ago> Whereas the other subfields of philosophy don't (yet) have ways to fully validate them, and/or make them reproducible? I think it depends on the field. Reproducibility is more of a recent concern, whereas this process has been going on since the ancient Greeks, I'm sure. Probably more recently the criterion is "commercial value".