The problem I have with that is the following: when scientists disagree, there is an effective methodology for resolving the dispute. We run experiments, and then find out who is right and who is wrong. (sometimes we’re all wrong!) Social Sciences in general, but philosophy especially, have no such mechanisms. It becomes impossible to resolve disagreements and make progress.
As I’ve explained, philosophy deals with the realm of subjective which inherently deals with interpretation. There is no objective right or wrong possible, however it’s absurd to claim that having a framework for what’s desirable is not important. Humans are social species and we need a framework to govern our interactions and to decide how we use technology.
The problem I have with that is the following: when scientists disagree, there is an effective methodology for resolving the dispute. We run experiments, and then find out who is right and who is wrong. (sometimes we’re all wrong!) Social Sciences in general, but philosophy especially, have no such mechanisms. It becomes impossible to resolve disagreements and make progress.
As I’ve explained, philosophy deals with the realm of subjective which inherently deals with interpretation. There is no objective right or wrong possible, however it’s absurd to claim that having a framework for what’s desirable is not important. Humans are social species and we need a framework to govern our interactions and to decide how we use technology.