All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should an

All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.

The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
(b) the decreasing requirements for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domains,
and,
(c) the requirement for consistency across domains.

In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.

I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.

The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.

This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.