Science vs. Pseudoscience, Philosophy vs... ?

[brimstoneSalad]

The failure of the field of "philosophy"* to distinguish and discount patently absurd and invalid ideas that violate the essence of its most important methodologies as pseudo-philosophy is why philosophy is a joke to most people -- including the most educated, and the vast majority of real critical thinkers. They see it as a sophistry with no standards, where anything goes -- because most philosophers, and academia (since there isn't exactly a bustling field of experimental philosophy), allow it.

Just as would science be a joke without disregarding things that attempt to borrow its terminology and shoehorn in on its reputation without living up to scientific standards.

It's something that needs to change, can easily change, and would vastly improve the notion of philosophy and its perception with the adoption of a simple word: Pseudo-philosophy.

Even the simplest understanding of what is and is not valid philosophy would do wonders for the credibility of the field, and move it from its nebulous position next to religion, where no objective standards can exist, and towards the rigorous methodology of the natural sciences where it belongs.


*Of course, philosophy proper is a much larger category which contains natural philosophy, which is science; my meaning is the non-empirical philosophies generally; logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics.

[EquALLity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy

It looks like the term kind of already exists, it's just not popular.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Hahaha, was that you?

[brimstoneSalad]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophilosophy

It looks like the term kind of already exists, it's just not popular.

Yes, I think thus far it lacks the strong enough consensus and common usage that pseudoscience has which leads to the crucial public knowledge of the notion, which is unfortunate for the field.
I think secular philosophers could probably come closer to identifying such a consensus and standard, since they have more motivation to do so (to distance from religion), where theologians have a motivation to do the opposite, to muddle philosophy in attempt to create legitimacy for theology.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Hahaha, was that you?

Hah, no, it wasn't. Randianism is widely ridiculed, because it's ridiculous. Next to Nazism in that article, where it belongs.

[EquALLity]

Yes, I think thus far it lacks the strong enough consensus and common usage that pseudoscience has which leads to the crucial public knowledge of the notion, which is unfortunate for the field.
I think secular philosophers could probably come closer to identifying such a consensus and standard, since they have more motivation to do so (to distance from religion), where theologians have a motivation to do the opposite, to muddle philosophy in attempt to create legitimacy for theology.

Can't you be a non-religious theologian?
I though theology was just the study of religion and certain things within it?

Hah, no, it wasn't. Randianism is widely ridiculed, because it's ridiculous. Next to Nazism in that article, where it belongs.

Randianism, eh? Hahaha, is that a derogatory term for it or something?

[brimstoneSalad]

Can't you be a non-religious theologian?
I though theology was just the study of religion and certain things within it?

That's a good question. I'm not sure. We'd have to figure out if secular members of the field call themselves theologians. I don't think they do, but some might. I don't know enough people in theology.

Randianism, eh? Hahaha, is that a derogatory term for it or something?

The derogatory term is Randroid, much more fun.

[Volenta]

That's a good question. I'm not sure. We'd have to figure out if secular members of the field call themselves theologians. I don't think they do, but some might. I don't know enough people in theology.

Speaking about myself here, I see the existence of God as a philosophical question backed up by empirical data. When the answer is 'probably not', you don't even have to go near theology in the way it's practiced by believers. The study of religion and it's effects on society can be allocated to anthropology of religion. And as for specific religious claims, I'm again just limiting myself to science and philosophy.

[brimstoneSalad]

Speaking about myself here, I see the existence of God as a philosophical question backed up by empirical data. When the answer is 'probably not', you don't even have to go near theology in the way it's practiced by believers. The study of religion and it's effects on society can be allocated to anthropology of religion. And as for specific religious claims, I'm again just limiting myself to science and philosophy.

I agree. I don't think the particular field of theology is really necessary, unless of course you assume a god does exist, and fall prey to all of the bad arguments and appeals to faith and authority that don't belong in science or philosophy.

When dealing with those subjects from a secular perspective, I think you're right that anthropology and philosophy cover the whole thing, picking up where the other leaves off.