On: Has there been progress in philosophy?

[Retric]

"reasoning about what science is and does is part of philosophy."

I am saying some of that analysis benefits from real hard data. So, if your saying all of that analysis falls under philosophy, then I don't think that's what most people mean when the use the term.

[foldr → Retric]

Sure, but philosophers usually do look at hard data where appropriate.

[pasabagi → foldr]

I actually think 'hard data' is typically about as relevant to philosophy as it is to maths. Not everything is reducible to stats.

I just find it weird to be using a machine that's a recognizable descendant of the work of philosophers, as much as engineers or mathematicians, then to be saying casually that philosophy isn't rigorous.

[Retric → pasabagi]

You could argue using hard data is less rigorous. But, in practice people make mistakes so without verification Philosophy and math is again arguably less rigorous, depending on what you mean by that word.

[pasabagi → Retric]

Rigour is pretty hard to rigorously define. If we could, then epistemology would be complete.

[foldr → pasabagi]

>I actually think 'hard data' is typically about as relevant to philosophy as it is to maths. Not everything is reducible to stats.

Oh yes, I agree entirely on that point.