Imagine the mess science would be if it brought this level of accuracy and epistemology to the table when thinking.
Philosophy on the other hand. Pick Searle or Derrida, pick Quine or the late Heidegger, and it is hard to conceive that they are even doing the same thing ("philosophy").
What it retains is everything that hasn't gotten pulled out into its own named discipline. Which is something of a jumble, sure.
And generally speaking, the practitioners of these disciplines tend to assert that their findings are true, in fact. Whether they are actually true....well, interest in that tends to drop off quite rapidly.
Welcome to Planet Earth, 2023, please enjoy your stay.
>Philosophy on the other hand. Pick Searle or Derrida, pick Quine or the late Heidegger, and it is hard to conceive that they are even doing the same thing ("philosophy").
Investigating the mysterious extremes of a system is a lot harder than investigating the known to be (now, after many decades of very hard work and dedication) deterministic middle ground.
At the end of the day, everyone is doing their best, and Mother Nature will award us with the fruits of our collective activities...unfortunately, our (projected) rewards seem to be taking a steeply downward trajectory with this whole climate change thing. Shame there seems to be not much we can (actually) do about it, despite our over-abundance of surely fantastic ideas.
Filter it by the tag "naturalism". Where's semantic web, again?
You are saying metaphysics is about the "why" of this.
I agree.
I disagree that there has been a way or method of producing metaphysics that seems to work well. The evidence is that we have so many incompatible systems that all claim to be true.