why philosophy is not mainstream.

[Someone here]

You might have wondered.. Why philosophy is not discussed almost anywhere in mainstream society... Well that's because we live in a science Era where scientists have took ownership of the issue of knowledge from philosophers for decades by now. And I wanna present to you the core principle that makes science preferable to philosophy these days in approach to knowledge. Specifically to metaphysics. Simply because metaphysical subjects are impossible to prove or to disprove. Thus makes debating metaphysics considered a meaningless activity by mainstream society. 

A statement is meaningful if and only if it can be proved true or false.. at least in principle.. by means of the experience -this assertion is called the verifiability principle (aka the "verifiability criterion of meanng)The meaning of a statement is its method of verification.. that is we know the meaning of a statement if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false.
When are we sure that the meaning of a question is clear? Obviously if and only if we are able to exactly describe the conditions in which it is possible to answer yes...or..respectively.. the conditions in which it is necessary to answer with a no. The meaning of a question is thus defined only through the specification of those conditions...
The definition of the circumstances under which a statement is true is perfectly equivalent to the definition of its meaning.
... a statement has a meaning if and only if the fact that it is true makes a verifiable difference.
Metaphysical statements are not empirically verifiable and are thus forbidden: they are meaningless. That's why it's cringe to talk about the true nature of reality and such topics.
The only role of philosophy nowadays is the clarification of the meaning of statements and their logical relationships.  There is no distinct "philosophical knowledge" over and above the analytic knowledge provided by the formal disciplines of logic and mathematics and the empirical knowledge provided by the sciences.

Needless to say that's not how I view.philosophy.i actually study philosophy as my career. It's is absolutely necessary (and we can discuss that). But that's how it's looked upon nowadays epistemologically. 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Someone here

[Reciprocality]

I am genuinly confused by what in your comment you would identify with yourself and what you would differantiate as being 'that about which is the common scientific idea concerning philosophy', as they seem to be conjoined on several remarks.

"I wanna present to you the core principle that makes science preferable to philosophy these days in approach to knowledge. Specifically to metaphysics. Simply because metaphysical subjects are impossible to prove or to disprove. "

Is it impossible to prove to the standards set by you, or the standards of the scientific dicipline? The latter sentence in the quotation above is concieved only trough a principle, the nature of which is metaphysical, primarily beacuse it can itself not be grounded in anything else while simoutaneously being sound. (the way "look when the cars collide it can not possibly be proven nor disproven by which causes they were headed at each other") Either both or neither can be proven, the issue comes when proof is standardised as presicely that which conforms to only one.

I think to conflate meaning and knowing is also absurd, by the very standards set by scientism. If it weren't so you would not need to discern between accidental and essential data, i would even say that a sound statement tilts more toward meaninglessness, in that only if ever reached it would be superflous.

The verifiability principle actually says that truths of logic alone functions in opposition to meaning as though trough contradiction. In actuality truths of logics has the very same relation to meaning as that of empirical truths, while saying nothing about the way they both relate to confirmation of truth, as certainty. 

And on the matter of hidden public dialogue concerning Philosophy:

"Well that's because we live in a science Era where scientists have took ownership of the issue of knowledge from philosophers for decades by now." Now this i definitley will grant you, to the extent even them can be called philosophers.

[Reciprocality]

What is somewhat ironic is that Philosophy got eaten whole by the sciences the very era in which Verificationism took roots and sought after the sciences as being thought their equal. (and not their superior as it were per then)

Very qurious a desire for people claiming truth is that which is accidental to popular opinion.

Edited April 12, 2021 by Reciprocality

[BipolarGrowth]

You can verify metaphysical information. You can test this stuff for yourself although it’s not as simple as running some scientific experiment. Some people are probably unable to verify certain metaphysical truths due to health or ideological limitations though if not genetic/spiritual talent limitations. It’s not a fair discipline in that way although what discipline has ever been fair? It is quite possible to put these things to the test. This is empiricism in its purest form. Pure direct experience. If it can be experienced, you know that the principle in question has a type of value. With more testing, you can further develop your understanding. Readily quantifiable is not the same as provable. You can prove many things without measurements. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by BipolarGrowth

[Someone here]

@Reciprocality

Let's compare science and philosophy. 

If we think that characteristically philosophical knowledge is a priori... then this will tell us a lot about the differences between science and philosophy. Here’s a summary of a way we could draw the contrasts:

Science is about empirical knowledge.. philosophy is also a priori knowledge (if it exists).

Science is about contingent facts... philosophy is also about necessary truths (if they exist).

Science is about descriptive facts.. philosophy is also about normative truths (if they exist).

Science is about physical objects; philosophy is also about abstract objects (if they exist).((like God)).. 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss philosophy by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Someone here

[RendHeaven]

21 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Reciprocality

Let's compare science and philosophy. 

If we think that characteristically philosophical knowledge is a priori... then this will tell us a lot about the differences between science and philosophy. Here’s a summary of a way we could draw the contrasts:

Science is about empirical knowledge.. philosophy is also a priori knowledge (if it exists).

Science is about contingent facts... philosophy is also about necessary truths (if they exist).

Science is about descriptive facts.. philosophy is also about normative truths (if they exist).

Science is about physical objects; philosophy is also about abstract objects (if they exist).((like God)).. 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss philosophy by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

that's so ironic because the O.G. empiricists were the closest to non-duality, and they were full-blown philosophers

modern science has bastardized the word "empirical" ...

[Carl-Richard]

Neopositivism - the spectre of epistemic blindness that has plagued the sciences for nearly 100 years. The doctrine of "we ought to revere verificationism as THE scientific methodology" is self-defeating, because 1. you cannot use verificationism to verify whether we ought to adopt verificationism, and 2. most scientists don't even follow it either (which is actually a good thing). When "proven wrong", instead of throwing out their theory, they pull out from the public sphere, hold on to their theory and attempt to smooth out the flaws and refine it. That is how science progresses: not by mechanical elimination but creative innovation.

[Reciprocality]

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Reciprocality

Let's compare science and philosophy. 

If we think that characteristically philosophical knowledge is a priori... then this will tell us a lot about the differences between science and philosophy. Here’s a summary of a way we could draw the contrasts:

Science is about empirical knowledge.. philosophy is also a priori knowledge (if it exists).

To the degree empiricism is contingent i agree, the mode of which is abstract. When empiricism is neccesary and thus 'of knowing' then it does not divide and has more in common with a priory knowledge then the abstraction of science as layed out first in this subsection (a posteriory).

Science is about contingent facts... philosophy is also about necessary truths (if they exist).

When Science is about contingent facts only, it both does its job very well and very badly. If contingencies were its only operandi it would relative to its ideal do greatly but relative to society make a mess. They SAY they are about contigent facts only, but in reality they obviously are not. And they probably couldn't nor shouldn't yet.

Science is about descriptive facts.. philosophy is also about normative truths (if they exist).

It's first problem is that facts can not be descriptive, and descriptions can only be factual as they are in themselves and NOT as the qualify functions "meanings" of words causal or associated with them. And as soon as you disagree to that point you are yourself the one conflating material and abstract object, in that to whichever extent such qualifiers exist they depend fundamentaly on those abstractions.

I have a philosophy, which essence therefore is abstract: It says that normativity is not truth, either by accidental relationship or by contraciction. This is as we surely can agree to an abstract object, but can not also be a matter of "normative truths". A proposal i find neccesary true, and somehow congruent to your dichotomy: not descriptive.

"Science is about physical objects; philosophy is also about abstract objects (if they exist).((like God)).."

Philosophy only is about abstract objects to the degree those "objects" are rejected as true by means of scientific methodology on grounds of materialism. It is as such a perfect circle and supreme begging of questions. 

For these reasons it's considered futility to discuss philosophy by modern epistemologists because it seems unprovable whereas science is all about empirical verification. 

If proof is that which reveals a true identity by means also of communication then i would agree with those modern epistemologists, but that is an absurd standard, and self defeating. We are from the standpoint where such proof is implausible or even impossbile: capable of associationsim if but only for the recognition of anothers own independent thought. 

Science wants to be understood as that which does not engages in those "ifs" your refer to, and that is such delusion, and actually an ugly lie by those doing it. And the place from which, if to be understood simply: my contention begins.

@Someone here

[Someone here]

@Reciprocality Philosophy tries to study and understand the fundamental nature of two things: the existence of man.. and the relationship between man and existence. It also has many branches: metaphysics.. logic.. politics, epistemology.. ethics.. anesthetics.. and specific philosophy in fields like philosophy of language.. history.. the mind.. and religion. among others. The comparison is with science here.. Philosophy and science are two studies and domains. Philosophy came first and became the basis for science.. formerly known as natural philosophy. Both studies have many branches or fields of study and make use reasoning.. questioning, and analysis. The main difference is in the way they work and treat knowledge.

... Science is concerned with natural phenomena.. while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.

Another common element between the two studies is that they both try to explain situations and find answers. Philosophy does this by using logical argumentation.. while science utilizes empirical data. Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles.. while science tries to explain based on experiment results.. observable facts.. and objective evidence. Aka direct experience. That's why science is stronger epistemologically. 
.Science is used for instances that require empirical validation.. while philosophy is used for situations where measurements and observations cannot be applied. Science also takes answers and proves them as objectively right or wrong.
.Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy.. while only some objective questions can be related in science. Aside from finding answers.. philosophy also involves generating questions. Meanwhile.. science is only concerned with the latter.
Philosophy creates knowledge through thinking

science does the same by observing.

 

[OceanRiver]

@Someone here solid post. Good conversation

Edited April 13, 2021 by OceanRiver

[Reciprocality]

@Someone here You can not so readily differantiate between the two when seconds later all which is principles, deduction and thought is definitively philosophy. Especially when in the second comment you refer to philosophy as the study of the contingen fact and objective world as well.

Now philosophy is all those things, definitly and by neccesity. Problem occurs when thinking  "Philosophy tries to study and understand the fundamental nature of two things: the existence of man.. and the relationship between man and existence." whereby this somehow negates that of the sciences, as well as you (as refered to) in the second comment does not.

"Philosophy’s explanations are grounded in arguments of principles.. while science tries to explain based on experiment results" Well it does seem this way, ofcourse until it doesn't. To the very degree scientists are capable of this ideal of yours they have been reduced to machines without scope and aim. 

The sciences strength is reduced by their epistemology, which by definition makes "That's why science is stronger epistemologically. " absurd.

Empiri is emergently as important for philosophy as it is for the understanding of data (sciences), in the very way data is emergently the same for both diciplines to whicever extent they (diciplines) are understood as different. 

If Science then Philosophy, .. and to the degree this rule does not apply you have replaced man with some platonic machine. (as materialists ofcourse do) Or you have reduced emergence, phenomena and yourself to quality and quantity.

All which is said here is emergently as grounded to Empiri as to Principles, to whichever extent the quality of the former is non-formalizable whereby non-inteligable it is not therefore absurd. We can use Sciences to grasp those qualities, each and any of which is causal to interpretation AS philosophy. Implying ofcourse, issues of infinite regression.