When a philosophy has enough proofs and credibility, it becomes a science. Also, I do not think you can call logician philosophers. Lewis Carroll wouldn't.
Agree that the gatekeeping is a bit much, but doesn't warranted a swipe imho.
Agree that the gatekeeping is a bit much, but doesn't warranted a swipe imho.
I completely disagree with this notion of science. To me science is the practice of analysing findings from controlled experimentation and then deriving predictive, reproducible and falsifiable hypotheses.
What evidence is important to making progress and what evidence is irrelevant?
What does progress in understanding an area look like? Why should we undertake it?
These are questions of philosophy, no experiments can answer them.
I don't, but I find that it produces results that are instrumental, and I assume that the past behaves analogously to the future, and similar situations behave similarly because this has generally been true in my experience.
>Why should we undertake it?
I'm religious, so certain science is useful to me in accomplishing my goal of attaining heaven.
>These are questions of philosophy, no experiments can answer them.
I agree.