General relativity may prove to be just as "shitty" as a foundation. Newtonian physics held up to observation for a long time, it was only when more precise technology came about did we start to observe things that couldn't be explained by Newtonian physics.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:32 am Makes sense. Just like when you build a building you start with a shitty foundation that's falling apart, build your building, then use cranes to hold up the building while you chisel out the old foundation and pour a good one.
Yes, much easier. And we were talking about a consensus not proof. Consensus formation is much easier in the sciences because those that disagree with a theory need to come up with falsifying observations. Overtime the failure to falsify a theory will tend towards consensus. The same doesn't happen in philosophy because you really cannot "falsify" or confirm anything.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:32 am Like it's any easier in empirical science? Nothing is ever 100% proven in empirical science. It's pretty easy for people (including scientists) with strong biases to reject obvious facts like anthropogenic climate change and the nutritional adequacy of a properly planned vegan diet.
Also just as a matter of fact, there are far more consensus in science than philosophy. Take a physics 101 course and you'll be confronted with a clear consensus on the subject. Take a philosophy 101 course and you'll be confronted with various conflicting arguments about topics that there is no obvious way to resolve.
Actually....not really. There are various forms of logic so picking classical logic as your standard is to a degree controversial. But ignoring that, formalization of an argument only allows you to analyze the logical structure of the argument. It does nothing to tell you about the truth or meaning of some proposition used in the argument which is typically the critical issue. Philosophers aren't debating about topics that can easily be resolved by formalizing the arguments.brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat Mar 31, 2018 2:32 am I'd say it should be easier in philosophy, because when formalized basic logic is pretty non-controversial.