The Science of Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

You can go on with your infinite regression.
To insist on infinite regression as really real is illusory driven by psychology, note Hume's Problem of Cause and Effect reduced to constant conjunction then to customs and habits.

Well, infinite regress is a psychological phenomenon.

If psychological phenomena are "illusory" then so is all "motivation" and "impulses". And Philosophy.

You missed the point.

I stated "to insist" infinite regression is really real is illusory since there is no way to confirm it at all.
This is hypostatizing, i.e. "treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality."

An impulse like sexual can be verified with an empirical erection and verifying and justifying all the characteristics and properties belonging to what a 'sexual impulse' is.

To be realistic and practical with infinite regression we have to fall back on what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically [critical philosophy], i.e. not for example a first cause or God.

As far as the OP is concern and for pragmatic reasons, what is 'philosophy' cannot be preceded with 'science'.

Ohhh, I am all up for pragmatism! How do you verify verification?

There is no absolutely-absolute verification.
We have to fall back on the most reliable, i.e. from the scientific framework [we have gone tru this] and reinforced with critical thinking and morality & ethics.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have proven beyond reasonable doubt the relationship between metaphysics in general and science. Just as there is a philosophy of science, there is some sort of science of philosophy, which is mostly found systematically developed in analytic philosophy.

You will have to do better than just making blind assertions to refute it.

There are one or two rare articles claiming for The Science of Philosophy whereupon they have to sneak in their weird specific definition to get they ways.

Please cite

It is not to my interests.
I would prefer to claim there are none at all that attempt to justify the Science of Philosophy.

In this modern times I find the that point 'The Science of Philosophy' absurd.

Views?

The relationship between science and philosophy is that science is natural philosophy. Philosophy gives science its method and epistemological underpinnings, it also provides it with the skepticism necessary for science to work without making stupid statements.
Science would benefit from keeping its links with its own history and using philosophy. The first lesson of science ought to be the recognition that all scientific norms are metaphysical propostiions. That all laws are descriptions of metphsycial propositions.

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/230

I have no issue with the Philosophy of Science BUT NOT 'Science of Philosophy.'
There are many faculties of the various sciences [especially Physics] that has Philosophy as a credit.

Philosophy relies on all sort of tools and knowledge including the Sciences for its purpose but it is odd that one uses Science to overrides Philosophy as in "Science of Philosophy".

[Veritas Aequitas]

Views?

Science is saying, "Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit... ."

Philosophy is employed as a yardstick to measure its depth.

Agree in a way.

So we cannot have something like,

Science ["Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit... ." ] of Philosophy.

As I have always insisted all scientific knowledge at at best merely 'polished conjectures' [hypotheses].

[Veritas Aequitas]

To argue a science of philosophy is to argue a philosophy of philosophy given science is rooted in philosophy as it is a way to define reality. With this in mind philosophy becomes a recursive loop.

Why are you so loopy?

What is most pragmatic is we have to get off tangent from any loop to face reality optimally.

[Skepdick]

You missed the point.

I stated "to insist" infinite regression is really real is illusory since there is no way to confirm it at all.
This is hypostatizing, i.e. "treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality."

Don't be stupid. I can confirm every single one of my thoughts. So can you.
And so I can confirm that there exists a phenomenon in my mind: recursion/infinite regress. I know how to use it.

As for hypostatizing - the very concept of "reality" commits that error. What or where is "reality"? Show it to me so I can verify it.

"reality" merely represents the totality of your abstract understanding of what's going on around you.

An impulse like sexual can be verified with an empirical erection and verifying and justifying all the characteristics and properties belonging to what a 'sexual impulse' is.

So women have no sexual impulse? Because they don't get errections.

To be realistic and practical with infinite regression we have to fall back on what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically [critical philosophy], i.e. not for example a first cause or God.

As far as the OP is concern and for pragmatic reasons, what is 'philosophy' cannot be preceded with 'science'.

I don't want to be realistic. Practical is good enough for me. If it's stupid and it works, then it's not stupid.

We have to fall back on the most reliable, i.e. from the scientific framework [we have gone tru this] and reinforced with critical thinking and morality & ethics.

The purpose of science is to inform our choices; to improve our decision-making beyond guessing. Some people are happy with only guessing - it works for the lucky ones.

[Skepdick]

What is most pragmatic is we have to get off tangent from any loop to face reality optimally.

Optimality is a function of available resources.

What if you can't afford to do the necessary science to obtain "optimal understanding" due to time constraints?

[Sculptor]

There are one or two rare articles claiming for The Science of Philosophy whereupon they have to sneak in their weird specific definition to get they ways.

Please cite

It is not to my interests.
I would prefer to claim there are none at all that attempt to justify the Science of Philosophy.

In other words you are TALKING BOLLOCKS again.

In this modern times I find the that point 'The Science of Philosophy' absurd.

Views?

The relationship between science and philosophy is that science is natural philosophy. Philosophy gives science its method and epistemological underpinnings, it also provides it with the skepticism necessary for science to work without making stupid statements.
Science would benefit from keeping its links with its own history and using philosophy. The first lesson of science ought to be the recognition that all scientific norms are metaphysical propostiions. That all laws are descriptions of metphsycial propositions.

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/230

I have no issue with the Philosophy of Science BUT NOT 'Science of Philosophy.'
There are many faculties of the various sciences [especially Physics] that has Philosophy as a credit.

Philosophy relies on all sort of tools and knowledge including the Sciences for its purpose but it is odd that one uses Science to overrides Philosophy as in "Science of Philosophy".

[Veritas Aequitas]

You missed the point.

I stated "to insist" infinite regression is really real is illusory since there is no way to confirm it at all.
This is hypostatizing, i.e. "treat or represent (something abstract) as a concrete reality."

Don't be stupid. I can confirm every single one of my thoughts. So can you.
And so I can confirm that there exists a phenomenon in my mind: recursion/infinite regress. I know how to use it.

As for hypostatizing - the very concept of "reality" commits that error. What or where is "reality"? Show it to me so I can verify it.

"reality" merely represents the totality of your abstract understanding of what's going on around you.

I meant confirm empirically.
Point is how many 'turtles' can you confirm beyond the empirically?

An impulse like sexual can be verified with an empirical erection and verifying and justifying all the characteristics and properties belonging to what a 'sexual impulse' is.

So women have no sexual impulse? Because they don't get erections.

You are that ignorant of women?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Please cite

It is not to my interests.
I would prefer to claim there are none at all that attempt to justify the Science of Philosophy.

In other words you are TALKING BOLLOCKS again.

My claim is 'The Science of Philosophy' by default is not tenable, so why should I provide evidence bother with it.

If you want to prove me wrong, then you do the research and find the evidence to prove me wrong.

You are stupid, lack intelligence and lazy.
That I mentioned there are a few such claims reflect there will always be stupid ones to make such claims and I have done the search and is not obligated to provide you such insignificant evidence.
If you insist, note Colin Mcgin and some 'Morris' in the early 1900s and the onus is on you to do the research and prove me wrong.

[uwot]

My claim is 'The Science of Philosophy' by default is not tenable, so why should I provide evidence bother with it.

At what monkey house of a university did you do the post graduate work you claim?

[Skepdick]

I meant confirm empirically.

You don't even understand empiricism.

Is it; or is it not an empirical confirmation when you confirm that you are thirsty?

You don't understand public vs private information.

Point is how many 'turtles' can you confirm beyond the empirically?

That doesn't really matter. You can't even confirm one thirst.

You are that ignorant of women?

Are you? Women have as much a sexual drive as men. Obviously - women don't get erections.

[Sculptor]

It is not to my interests.
I would prefer to claim there are none at all that attempt to justify the Science of Philosophy.

In other words you are TALKING BOLLOCKS again.

My claim is 'The Science of Philosophy' by default is not tenable, so why should I provide evidence bother with it.

Why offer any support for your claim?? Maybe to show you are not a bloody idiot maybe?

If you want to prove me wrong, then you do the research and find the evidence to prove me wrong.

You are just talking bollocks. Now you are running scared. I asked for evidence that there were such a thing as the science of philosophy. You failed.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... meta.12116

You are stupid, lack intelligence and too lazy to find any.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Obviously - women don't get erections.

Still ignorant. You're gay and have never foreplayed with women?
Read it up.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In other words you are TALKING BOLLOCKS again.

My claim is 'The Science of Philosophy' by default is not tenable, so why should I provide evidence bother with it.

Why offer any support for your claim?? Maybe to show you are not a bloody idiot maybe?

If you want to prove me wrong, then you do the research and find the evidence to prove me wrong.

You are just talking bollocks. Now you are running scared. I asked for evidence that there were such a thing as the science of philosophy. You failed.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... meta.12116

You are stupid, lack intelligence and too lazy to find any.

Why are you so stupid?
I did google earlier but did not bother to show the links because the onus is not on me to do it.
Note I wrote subsequently,

• "If you insist, note Colin Mcgin and some 'Morris' in the early 1900s and the onus is on you to do the research and prove me wrong."

You didn't manage to find the article from some "Morris" [Charles] guy?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/184524?rea ... b_contents

[Sculptor]

My claim is 'The Science of Philosophy' by default is not tenable, so why should I provide evidence bother with it.

Why offer any support for your claim?? Maybe to show you are not a bloody idiot maybe?

If you want to prove me wrong, then you do the research and find the evidence to prove me wrong.

You are just talking bollocks. Now you are running scared. I asked for evidence that there were such a thing as the science of philosophy. You failed.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... meta.12116

You are stupid, lack intelligence and too lazy to find any.

Why are you so stupid?
I did google earlier but did not bother to show the links because the onus is not on me to do it.
Note I wrote subsequently,

• "If you insist, note Colin Mcgin and some 'Morris' in the early 1900s and the onus is on you to do the research and prove me wrong."

You didn't manage to find the article from some "Morris" [Charles] guy?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/184524?rea ... b_contents

Prove it