Quote:
Originally Posted by ecriture d'adulte
Yeah, I imagine that’s true. It doesnt seem like Newton really drew a sharp distinction between the classification of conic sections, alchemy and religious numerology like we do today, namely math, honest attempts at science that turned out to be incorrect because of a lack of understanding between the electro-chemical to nuclear scale and outright gibberish. But I think it’s tough to pretend that interesting lines of discovery are birthed philosophy in modern times.
It comes down to semantics, really. We just don't call it philosophy these days when people consider the larger questions in an area of knowledge. The conceptualization of the Turing Test, for example, is more philosophy than computer science and that opened a few lines.
Philosophy, at least as we generally use the term these days, is going to appear to be a bunch of people prattling on about useless and absurd stuff both because blind speculation is going to turn up way more misses than hits, and because the times it does turn up something useful it stops being philosophy and becomes something else.