Different people are good at different things, which is no real surprise; but one of the common situations where some people suddenly become blind to this is scientists regarding philosophy. Plus, well, most non-philosophers regarding philosophy. I've had the good fortune to know a couple of serious philosophers of science, enough to appreciate that they've developed some understandings more profoundly than I have. And, I'm immodest enough to extend that to 'more profoundly than most non-philosophers'.
One path of bad philosophy, the one which causes this post, follows from mistakes on the matter of certainty. Or, naming it by way of the error it leads to, intellectual nihilism. Certainty is a problematic concept for science, and science versus philosophy. Errors come from both sides, so beware of throwing rocks. From my philosophical vantage point, science is intrinsically uncertain. My scientific excuse for that philosophical assumption is to consider the Uncertainty Principle. It's enough for here to understand that you cannot, simultaneously, observe everything about a complex system (like an electron, an atom, or the climate system) exactly. You can do pretty well, but there's always some uncertainty in the observations.
A different line of philosophy regards how and how well you can consider yourself to know something (epistomology). One view of this derives from Karl Popper, under the label 'falsification'. For here, it's enough to note that one can really only be confident about your knowledge to the extent to which you've tested it. (Do, of course read further!) Since you can only be confident about your knowledge to the degree to which you've tested the idea/hypothesis/theory/..., and any test of an idea (etc.) is intrinsically uncertain (uncertainty principle again), you can never be entirely certain that you have the right answer, idea, hypothesis, theory. So some humility is in order -- for everybody.
Enter the bad philosophy.
[jules' pics] Pond
1 day ago