The Science of Philosophy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note the point bolded above definitely do not mean 'metaphysics is possible as a science'.

Metaphysics is a very loose term and there is no way Metaphysics is possible as a science conventionally.
Generally, in our modern time, it is a taboo to associate Metaphysics with Science.

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.

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

Views?

[Skepdick]

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.

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

Views?

You are trapped in a good ol' dualism.

The science of philosophy, or the philosophy of science fundamentally assumes that:

1. There are two distinct activities: science and philosophy.
2. Judgments can be made about the one from the perspective of the other.

Well, what if 1 (above) is not true? What if science and philosophy are two different accounts for the same human activity? Surely then all four of these are equivalent:

The science of philosophy.
The philosophy of science.
The science of science.
The philosophy of science.

Of course, my views on this are already known. The science of science. The philosophy of philosophy. The metaphysics of metaphysics. The study of study. The defining of "definition". Thinking about thinking. Understanding understanding. The meaning of meaning. Analysing analysis. The logic of logic. It's one and the same thing.

Recursion. Computer science.

Impredicativity is non-categorical reasoning. To hell with categoricals.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Given that Science is the 'son' of Philosophy, to claim The Science of Philosophy is like to claim The Biology of Science, The Physics of Science and so on.

At most we can have The Philosophy of philosophies, i.e. meta-philosophy which is fundamentally the essence of Philosophy.
Then the most obvious, i.e. The Philosophy of Science but not vice-versa.

[Skepdick]

Given that Science is the 'son' of Philosophy, to claim The Science of Philosophy is like to claim The Biology of Science, The Physics of Science and so on.

If you are going to frame this in terms of genealogy: what's the 'father' of Philosophy then?

At most we can have The Philosophy of philosophies, i.e. meta-philosophy which is fundamentally the essence of Philosophy.

At most? Why?

If meta-philosophy is "fundamentally" the essence of Philosophy then meta-meta-philosophy is "fundamentally" the essence of meta-philosophy.
And meta-meta-meta-philosophy is "fundamentally" the essence of meta-meta-philosophy.

How deep do you want to go?

You keep insisting on missing the point: I am pointing at self-application! The name of the discipline is unimportant.

Fundamentally: you have infinite regress/recursion. There is a discipline which specialises in understanding that phenomenon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Given that Science is the 'son' of Philosophy, to claim The Science of Philosophy is like to claim The Biology of Science, The Physics of Science and so on.

If you are going to frame this in terms of genealogy: what's the 'father' of Philosophy then?

At most we can have The Philosophy of philosophies, i.e. meta-philosophy which is fundamentally the essence of Philosophy.

At most? Why?

If meta-philosophy is "fundamentally" the essence of Philosophy then meta-meta-philosophy is "fundamentally" the essence of meta-philosophy.
And meta-meta-meta-philosophy is "fundamentally" the essence of meta-meta-philosophy.

How deep do you want to go?

You keep insisting on missing the point: I am pointing at self-application! The name of the discipline is unimportant.

Fundamentally: you have infinite regress/recursion. There is a discipline which specialises in understanding that phenomenon.

To survive all humans are "programmed" to breathe along with other primal instincts, food, fight, flight, fuck and the basic drive to evolve and progress gradually or in quantum jumps from whatever the existing state [this trait and trend is so Evident].

The latter drive is what I would tracked to and label as the primal philosophical instinct, i.e. the Father of all philosophical and other related offshoots.

One of the offshoots is the basic philosophical impulse is "to know" which subsequently matured as Modern Science.
Etymology of Science: Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

There is no infinite regress that is significant in this case.
The core element is the evolving brain and the most effective depth to dig into is the human brain.
Prior to that, the regress is on a reducing scale down of mental competence to the first one-celled living thing where philosophy [mental activity of progress] is irrelevant.

[Skepdick]

To survive all humans are "programmed" to breathe along with other primal instincts, food, fight, flight, fuck and the basic drive to evolve and progress gradually or in quantum jumps from whatever the existing state [this trait and trend is so Evident].

I know. Why are you telling me this?

The latter drive is what I would tracked to and label as the primal philosophical instinct, i.e. the Father of all philosophical and other related offshoots.

You failed to address my question. If there's a father, there's also a grandafather. And a great-grandfather. And a great-great-grandfather.... Why have you (arbitrarily) chosen to focus on the father?

One of the offshoots is the basic philosophical impulse is "to know" which subsequently matured as Modern Science.
Etymology of Science: Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

You are still missing the point. I am pointing about self-application: knowing knowledge.

There is no infinite regress that is significant in this case.

I am pointing at the significance of significance.

The core element is the evolving brain and the most effective depth to dig into is the human brain.

I am pointing out that wherever you start digging you face the arbitrary choice: When do I stop digging?
If you don't stop digging: infinite regress awaits you.

Prior to that, the regress is on a reducing scale down of mental competence to the first one-celled living thing where philosophy [mental activity of progress] is irrelevant.

But why stop there? You can reduce cells further. You can reduce the reduction of cells. You can reduce the reduction of the reduction of cells.

You are STILL missing the point: reducing reduction is self-application.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To survive all humans are "programmed" to breathe along with other primal instincts, food, fight, flight, fuck and the basic drive to evolve and progress gradually or in quantum jumps from whatever the existing state [this trait and trend is so Evident].

I know. Why are you telling me this?

The latter drive is what I would tracked to and label as the primal philosophical instinct, i.e. the Father of all philosophical and other related offshoots.

You failed to address my question. If there's a father, there's also a grandafather. And a great-grandfather. And a great-great-grandfather.... Why have you (arbitrarily) chosen to focus on the father?

One of the offshoots is the basic philosophical impulse is "to know" which subsequently matured as Modern Science.
Etymology of Science: Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

You are still missing the point. I am pointing about self-application: knowing knowledge.

There is no infinite regress that is significant in this case.

I am pointing at the significance of significance.

The core element is the evolving brain and the most effective depth to dig into is the human brain.

I am pointing out that wherever you start digging you face the arbitrary choice: When do I stop digging?
If you don't stop digging: infinite regress awaits you.

Prior to that, the regress is on a reducing scale down of mental competence to the first one-celled living thing where philosophy [mental activity of progress] is irrelevant.

But why stop there? You can reduce cells further. You can reduce the reduction of cells. You can reduce the reduction of the reduction of cells.

You are STILL missing the point: reducing reduction is self-application.

The issue on hand is not about substance or any ultimate physical thing.
Philosophy is related to an impulse that is mental process.
Regardless we will not find 'Science' [to know, knowledge] preceding the primal impulse of philosophy.

[Skepdick]

The issue on hand is not about substance or any ultimate physical thing.

Phisycal/non-physical - is just labels. Manners of speaking.

Philosophy is related to an impulse that is mental process.

Uhuh. And what is the process of processing?

Regardless we will not find 'Science' [to know, knowledge] preceding the primal impulse of philosophy.

I don't really care what you call it. Something precedes philosophy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The issue on hand is not about substance or any ultimate physical thing.

Phisycal/non-physical - is just labels. Manners of speaking.

Philosophy is related to an impulse that is mental process.

Uhuh. And what is the process of processing?

Regardless we will not find 'Science' [to know, knowledge] preceding the primal impulse of philosophy.

I don't really care what you call it. Something precedes philosophy.

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.
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'.

[Skepdick]

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.

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?

[Sculptor]

Note the point bolded above definitely do not mean 'metaphysics is possible as a science'.

Metaphysics is a very loose term and there is no way Metaphysics is possible as a science conventionally.
Generally, in our modern time, it is a taboo to associate Metaphysics with Science.

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

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

[simplicity]

Views?

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

Philosophy is employed as a yardstick to measure its depth.

[Skepdick]

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

It's all bullshit, but it's useful bullshit.

#Instrumentalism

[simplicity]

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

It's all bullshit, but it's useful bullshit.

#Instrumentalism

No doubt, some is useful, but the vast majority is fertilizer and fertilizer alone.

Here's the useful part...

[Eodnhoj7]

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.