Biology is nice because it's a bit of "hands on" physics. Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology. As a bonus our brain is biology. Biology -> Psychology, and the a bit flawed Philosophy, and the deeply flawed Religion.

Yeah, really. Speaking of waste, The arguments 'against philosophy' appear rooted in haughty hubris. Which is not a big struggle to deal with, but it can be a wasteful sidetrack.

Philosophy has lost its moorings during the last 500 years (not totally ) and the reason being is the advocation of Kant throughout the Western world buttressed by the skeptical rivers of David Hume.

Philosophy has always been about knowledge, or knowing (to scire) which is the language equivalent of science (to know).

It can't be downplayed that when Kant attempted to deny the Humean treatise he failed and make two statements:

1) We cannot "know" and therefore mankind is best following "duty".

2) The true basis of knowledge, in this scenario, is the realm of mathematics for in this realm there is structure which is undeniable.

There were , of course, deniers of Kant but by and large his approach swept over the western world, even to the man on the street. The man on the street, bowing to his ecclesiastical betters of the modern university, became a walking critic, if not a cynic.

As an important aside, anything which comes to the world must come through a man, whether in revelation, or logically or otherwise but I would more often say that Kant , in his insight,apprehended the forces working within the world , through all men, and he brought this "philosophy" to fruition. In a sense he read the signs of the times and laid it bare.

The consequences in this "disbelief" in knowledge can be seen clearly by the Pragmatic philosophies of James and Dewey.

The pragmatism ethos states "we cannot know and therefore we will theorize an answer holding that answer until another pragmatic consideration comes to the fore". Other stuff like "the ends justify the means" comes about throughout this glistened Pragmatism.

Actually this Pragmatism, which is important for the nations of the Americas and their sister Great Britain is an important factor in the economic basis of the these nations and correspondingly the West.

In the economic sense, or business sphere, the idea of projecting sales or expenditures or whatever planning one does in these realms is not exact for the vicissitudes of life can and often enough does lay bare the abjected plans of men. And of course the mathematical statistical strengths buttress this planning as best it can. Statistics;"I don't know but I'll take the 11 to 10 shot".

But there 's more , due to the Kantian foray, in that the science of our day is very much a Pragmatic approach to the the study of nature, man, and all within . It is here that the relevant question is ; in economics of business we understand this pragmatism but how can you justify your pragmatic approach to the rhythmic cosmos ? Is this approach correct, even in your eyes, or are we all treading water waiting for the next Kant to arise, only without the denial of knowledge ?

Business and economics has really entered into a realm to which it is not viable, not by dollars and cents but by force of a philosophy which creeps where it doesn't belong.

In at the time of the early pragmatists, there was a quip and this philosophy was "philosophy of as if " or:

We don't know the answer but "lets make up something and treat this as if it were true" , harsh but revealing.

A theory of everything seems naive. In the last paragraph of a 'A Brief History of Time', Hawking says that once we know everything, scientists and philosophers, and common people alike can sit around and...and...

In retrospect, it was reasonable to think it was around the corner when electricity and magnetism
were unified so eloquently, yet before Maxwell seemed a million miles apart. Quantum physics came along and threw a monkey wrench in the works yet is the reason we are all conversing now.

Hawking like any smart person is also well aware that perhaps we aren't equipped to know everything (Grand Design). Hawking also entertained the idea of a mind-dependent reality in one of his TV series. In which he said, 'I think Philosophy
is dead' but in the exact same episode delves into the simulation theory, who was put forth best by none other than the philosopher Nick Bostrom.

On a side note, you'd be hard pressed to find a better book on super intelligence than the one written by Bostrom.

That said, I don't have a dog in the fight, when it comes to the body of education you are referring to. After all, the best philosophers were arguably mostly self-read, had enough money to philosophize over plowing the fields.

'Arguments against philosophy' (thanks Spank) and arguments against the organized teaching of philosophy are certainly distinct. Though I don't need a genius physicist or otherwise to tell me that philosophers aren't inventing transistors, say.

Also Bostrom may be the exception I know.

The Unabomber argued nicely in his manifesto that scientists would drive us off a cliff if it involved solving a hard puzzle. Many prominent scientists including Tegmark, agree with that notion.

I studied physics because I loved philosophy. If you love philosophy, you don't study philosophy, it quickly becomes something where there is nothing more to learn. A good thinker should know enough of the shape of everything by the time you hit 15-17 that philosophy becomes uninteresting.

Philosophy has its own "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" - a granularity below which further delving is meaningless, and actually impossible. When you reach that point, philosophy becomes boring and pointless. The less bright never reach that point. Good for them I guess.

Physics however can stretch your mind and sharpen your philosophical sophistication well into your 20s. As can linguistics and being a conman.

That's not a persuasive point to over 90% of the population.

It's no ultimate goal of science. As it's not ultimate goal of life, per se.
In the long run we all are dead. Sounds familiar?

To answer your question: Technically, the ultimate goal of science is to understand how the universe works. It's the Best tool for the job. Anything else is going to be uncivilized, as Charles Barkley would say.
Thanks

It's no ultimate goal of science. As it's not ultimate goal of life, per se. Enjoy the ride, as much as you can. Take from life as much as you can do. That's it.!!!

In the long run we all are dead. Sounds familiar?

To answer your question: Technically, the ultimate goal of science is to understand how the universe works. It's the Best tool for the job. Anything else is going to be uncivilized, as Charles Barkley would say.

Yes, we will be dead, and therefore, if possible, it's good not to waste it on BS.

If we do our science well in the next few decades, you and I could be around until the end of time.

I'd give a guy being born now that chance, maybe you, definitely not me. Problem for all will anyhow be that the AIs will be better in almost every aspect, but maybe a cyborg stage, giving the impression of preserved self, would be something.

It's going to be a weird and scary new world, with a reasonable possibility of annihilation given how incredibly stupid humans are at managing and understanding risk. Sklansky should have written more books and educated people.

There's a reasonable chance that higher intelligence merely leads to boredom and/or the naked grab of all power and resources to gain more insight.

Exactly. By the way, are you still there? If you still are, enjoy the weather. It's wonderful!!!! It's one of my favorite places on earth. I know the area very well.

I'm not. I'm in a place with 15 centigrade and cloudy/rain

That's home.

Oh, ok. At least, did you have a good time? Life is beautiful there....if you don't have to worry about BS. The sea and the sky are melted there. They are the same. No more empty philosophical exercises. It's only one thing that matters. Life. Enjoy it.!!!!! You are worth it.

Id say the ultimate goal of science is whatever the person doing it, does it for. Science doesnt appear to be an entity with a will of its own. Me personally I would agree with above quote.

Why does it matter to you how the universe works?

Did I say I was a scientist?

Its a natural curiosity. Call it a dance, call it a play, call it a game, you cant but wonder at times.

..."or perhaps not".

My point being: whether it does have practical utility or doesn't, isn't relevant to my enjoyment of it.
So much nonsense.

Any enjoyment attached to the pursuits associated with this curiosity? (whether scientist or not).

Maybe I should clarify. I dont believe science to be an entity of its own. Science is something to be done/observed/experienced by something. Like Humans for example. So if science is to learn how the universe works and we define the universe as everything. Everyone of us is a scientist, or at least was at some point of his life.

Since I learn best when I play with things and I enjoy playing. There is lots of enjoyment when playing with the universe.

I don't disagree.

We do it because we enjoy it.

What's enjoyable to many is that which is interesting (e.g. science). What's enjoyable to some is that which helps others (e.g. science). To a few, that which needs no reasons; just enjoyment.

Some need reasons. For everything they do; everything they enjoy. The pedantic ones.

Doing science hurrah! A goal of science is to give you and me something to consider. Ia goal that doesn't need be oft stated as long science is being done and reality is well approximated among mystery.

I enjoy breathing, eating, drinking water, drinking other drinks sometimes, having sex, loving, romancing, listening to music, trying to compose music, imagining sci fi stories, imagining and designing with logic better worlds, taking pictures of landscapes and nature and all kinds of other things. But none absolutely none compares with the moment of discovery.

So whoever says i do science because i like it is not getting it. I can do science for 3 decades never getting where i will enjoy the highest high ever imagined, the magical moment of synthesis. I can persist against frustration because i care to know. In fact i care more to know than being the one that gives you the whatever you can now know. I care to understand it.

You can try to simplistically see all as pleasure but in reality we do science because we care, we give a damn and not everyone does apparently.

But know this, let this haunt you forever. Nobody can ignore someone that cares, especially the universe itself. So care damn it. Care to know and then virtue and happiness will follow.

Without care both lows and highs are minimized. How can you feel a high about something you don't care much for? How can you feel a low about something you don't care much for?

Let me assure you that those who do things for enjoyment and pleasure care a great deal about enjoyment and pleasure. When they're not feeling it, they feel the low, when they are they feel the high. Much the same way that you may feel a low when you don't think you're helping anyone or a high when you think you've made a good difference to someone's life.