[crimsonalucard]

My argument is that these branches are not sibling branches.

Metaphysics sits at the root and all the other branches are abstractions on top of that. Like really high on top and centric to the human experience. It's as arbitrary as putting "dog nature" in place of human nature, what justifies human nature to be the foundation as opposed to "dog nature"? Nothing. Hence my argument for why this grouping and the field itself seems illegitimate.

[james_s_tayler]

Well if dogs were smart enough to figure things out they'd probably put dog nature at the top as it would be their experience they are trying to make sense of.

Everyone has their own answer to those questions. That's their philosophy. The field itself catalogues developments in which answers have been a) novel and significant and/or b) become widely accepted at some point in history.

[crimsonalucard]

Well why don't we find a part of it where everyone has the same answer? Something that's dog/human nature agnostic?

Philosophy fails on this count and thus I would argue fails to be a foundational framework for Science, math or logic.

I would argue that science, math and logic serve as foundational frameworks for religion, ethics and the rest of the soft sides of philosophy.

[james_s_tayler]

Sort of the whole point of it is that not everyone comes to the same set of answers. So, dialog ensues as people try to shore up their viewpoints with one another and both are often transformed in the process. That's how a dialectic works.

Before the age of enlightenment, yours was not a commonly held viewpoint. After, it became to be acceptable and then accepted. That's philosophy at work.

I don't think of it as a foundation per se. It's more like a continuous process that carries out over time as individuals interact, the result of which only a small portion is obviously visible with the rest going mostly unnoticed.

[crimsonalucard]

Yes, if that's the point of philosophy then it makes philosophy a bad foundation for science and logic.

If you say it's not a foundation, then we are in agreement.

[james_s_tayler]

Yeah I would say it's not a foundation for undertaking scientific equiry. That's what the scientific method is for. Math is a foundation for logic.

The aggregate output of philosophy as a process for negotiating a shared understanding of "what is true and what to do about it" is the foundation upon which societies thoughts rest. If that makes sense?

They are quite linked though. And there isn't any escaping philosophy regardless of you feel about it. Re: the replication crisis - we have found that the very foundation we thought was Rock solid doesn't appear to hold for the social sciences. The "how do we know?" has fundamentally come in to question and we find ourselves back at epistemology searching for another suitable way to be sure about things.

But I agree it's not a foundation for science per se. Just a foundation for forming belief systems. Philosophy is capable of producing all kinds of nonsense. And indeed it has and does all the time.

[crimsonalucard]

>The aggregate output of philosophy as a process for negotiating a shared understanding of "what is true and what to do about it" is the foundation upon which societies thoughts rest. If that makes sense?

Can't agree with this. Nothing can be verified to be true. The undertaking is impossible. We can only identify correlations to a degree and causation to a degree.

>we have found that the very foundation we thought was Rock solid doesn't appear to hold for the social sciences.

Science is known not to be rock solid. It is based on statistics which is based on the theory of probability. We use probability to establish correlation to a degree and causation to a degree. But this is based off of the assumption that the set of axioms and theorems from probability theory applies to the real world. It's self referential and unverifiable: By probability, probability is correlated with reality.

The replication crisis is not a philosophical problem but a problem with bias. Research studies are choosing biased samples and making biased observations. We have no indication as of yet that it is pointing to some fundamental flaws in probability.

This is the limit of what we can do. If philosophy purports to go deeper and further, I'll have to disagree.