[hamdani yusuf]

That is a wide variety of subjects   (Microbiology --> communication protocols).

In most of those subjects, I only scratch the surface. I got a little bit deeper when it's needed to do my job, although sometimes my curiosity made me wander around a bit further.

[hamdani yusuf]

That seems to be treating philosophy as if it is just like a science subject.

Science is supposed to be a part of philosophy IMO. That's how it used to be. Science was called natural philosophy.
Some ideas of past philosophers have been proven to be scientifically  wrong. Modern philosophers reacted by making their ideas harder to prove. It prevents them from becoming quickly irrelevant. But it also make their ideas less useful, vague, and created unnecessary debates and disagreements.

[hamdani yusuf]

It's got just as much in common with Humanities and even purely Arts subjects.

If it is meant to avoid responsibility for getting things wrong, then it won't be very useful nor important. Philosophy should be the basis of our biggest and most influential decisions. If our currently held philosophy can't provide it, we'd better find a better alternative.

[hamdani yusuf]

Using words with precise and consistent definitions can then be less important than selecting words that convey meaning, stirs emotional response and provokes the reader to question something they have felt and might actually be impossible to put into words.

Natural language in its current form has a lot of limitations. It's prone to create miscommunications and misunderstandings, even conflicts. AI simplifies it by converting words and sentences into vectors and tensors before further processings.
Instead of letting emotions and instincts dominate people's decisions, we should promote people to gain wisdom. It would make them think more rationally, which often force them to overcome momentary emotions. But it will prevent regrets in the future.

[alancalverd]

I didn't sit the final exam and have no formal qualification in Philosophy

Big mistake! Second only to Economics, it's an exam where there are no wrong answers!

[evan_au]

Philosophy should be the basis of our biggest and most influential decisions.

It has been noted that if you recursively trace the first significant word in a Wikipedia article back to its Wikipedia article, you get back to the Wikipedia entry on Philosophy (in about 95% of cases).

So perhaps Philosophy is the basis of our biggest and most influential Wikipedia articles? (in a roundabout sort of way...)
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi.

it's an exam where there are no wrong answers!

   Yes but also no completely right ones.   
   Like a lot of essay subjects, final marks tended to be pulled toward the middle.  Meanwhile, Mathematics examinations supported the full spread of marks  (0 to 100%).  So switching a Mathematics exam for Philosophy (or not) remained a tactical decision.

Best Wishes.

[Bored chemist]

It has been noted that if you recursively trace the first significant word in a Wikipedia article back to its Wikipedia article, you get back to the Wikipedia entry on Philosophy (in about 95% of cases).

Ah yes, but what do you mean by "significant"...?

[evan_au]

what do you mean by "significant"...?

Clicking on the first link in the main text of an English Wikipedia article, and then repeating the process for subsequent articles, used to usually lead to the Philosophy article. In February 2016, this was true for 97% of all articles in Wikipedia

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Getting_to_Philosophy
Clicking is the first link in this Wikipedia article.

[paul cotter]

I studied chemistry/biochemistry and subsequently electrical engineering. My concerns are around the tsunami of bullshit pervading the web and debunking such is my aim. However it seems a lost cause and the march of pseudoscience appears unstoppable, smothering the last vestiges of critical thinking. Rant over.

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi and welcome,  @paul cotter ,  although I know I've spoken with you several times already.

I'm not a fan of Pseudoscience either but I'm going to take the other side for a moment, or at least advocate for proper balance.

...the march of pseudoscience appears unstoppable...

   Trying to obtain some balance on a forum is always a problem:  Reduce pseudoscience while continuing to engage with the widest possible audience.   This forum is extremely tolerant.   Other forums will shut down, edit or entirely remove posts without a moments hesitation.  The thing is that many of those were from people that were just inexperienced but trying to engage and/or just didn't agree on a minor issue.   Some of the strictest forums end up becoming nothing more that echo-chambers for a few well established members.   Anyone with a slightly different view is shut down or will decide not to continue with the forum anyway.   Some of the less tolerant forums will actually put people off studying any more science and I don't see how that can be considered a good thing.
     Handling anything that doesn't follow main-stream science, is a complicated issue.   Depending on how you look at the situation, isn't it at least half-good that someone might be trying to engage with the scientific community?   How you / we (scientists) handle it from there can be important, possibly more important than responding to other scientists.   Obviously, sometimes people aren't interested in discussion but just in what is often described as "preaching" - but don't we at least have to try?

Best Wishes.

[paul cotter]

I absolutely am NOT referring to the forum, where rubbish is rapidly terminated. I am talking about the web in general. In previous times the local nutcase would walk down the street, talking to himself and his crackpot ideas would not disseminate further. Now he goes on line, meets up with similar minded individuals reinforcing their errors in what has become an echo chamber. The internet is a great power for good yet extremely dangerous.(lest any of my above comments seem cruel to those with mental health difficulties, this is most definitely not my intention-in my younger days I have suffered from anxiety and depression and an obsession with, let's say, "fine chemicals".

[hamdani yusuf]

I'm not a fan of Pseudoscience either but I'm going to take the other side for a moment, or at least advocate for proper balance.

We need to distinguish between pseudoscience and fringe science. The difference is in how they apply scientific methods, beside the terminal goals of doing the scientific studies. Every scientific breakthrough started as fringe science.

If they're not meant to better understanding of objective reality (i. e. building more accurate and precise models of the universe), they are not proper science. Personal gains such as fame and fortune can lead someone to deviate from proper science.

Even well motivated scientific studies can lead to false conclusions. Confusion between noise and signal is quite common. Some can be quickly identified and fixed before publications, but some others can't. Incomplete data is another cause of scientific inaccuracy. It forces scientist to make speculative hypotheses which can either be true or false. Atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, and Bohr are inaccurate, but it doesn't necessarily make them pseudoscience. 

[Eternal Student (OP)]

Hi @Foxxi,

    Your post looks like an attempt to setup for further advertising.    Also, you don't really fit the criteria specified in the first post of this thread (a regular user), so it doesn't look like you read it or are making any genuine attempt to interact.
    However, on the off-chance,  hello and welcome.

Best Wishes.

[alancalverd]

It turns out that it can bring a very good income

Extracted from whom?