[Singletoned]

> don't forget philosophy includes includes silly topics like "Is truth the same as beauty, and beauty the same as truth", or the nature of God.

That's like saying science includes silly topics like homeopathy and "conquering the seven signs of aging". Just because people claim they are doing science, doesn't mean that they are. The same applies to philosophy.

[mannykannot]

There is a middle way here. Currently-active fields in philosophy sometimes (usually?) lack bounded questions and precise answers, yet are not silly (ethics, for example.)

I don't think philosophy is about finding answers, the discussion itself is its purpose. Consequently, there is always the risk of generating closed, self-referential discussions in which the subject of the discourse is the discourse itself (post-structuralism vs. structuralism?) It also seems to be an accepted practice to hang an elaborate argument on nothing more than a personal opinion, as if doing so turned that opinion into an objective fact (I am thinking specifically of some of the arguments over consciousness.) For these reasons, I think you have to pick and choose from the offerings of philosophy if your goal is to teach general thinking skills.

[harrumph]

>Just because people claim they are doing science, doesn't mean that they are. The same applies to philosophy.

No True Scotsman is not the way to go here. It never is, actually.

[Chris2048]

There are standards of science, where are the standards of philosophy?