(All) As a body of wisdom literature, especially as the history of thought, and

(All)
As a body of wisdom literature, especially as the history of thought, and especially as the development of the european tradition and it’s group strategy and means of advancement, I see the study of philosophy as value in training the mind – in particular training the mind in the history of insight and error.

However, I’ve ended up an anti-philosophy ‘philosopher’ with a conviction that (a) philosophy (choice) is demarcated from science (truth), (b) there are no meaningful questions remaining in philosophy (choice) that are not sophistries or matters of science (testimony, truth) (c) and that epistemology in particular, now that we have a model of perception, representation, cognition, and reason, is fully within the discipline of science – or at least science under operationalism.

I’m still concerned that this might be an error. Because the role of philosophers as I see it, is to reorder knowledge in response to new discovery – progressing ever closer by popperian verisimilitude (discovery by competition) toward a finite set of irreducible first principles and the resulting constructive logic.

In other words, just as philosophy is a bridge between theology and empiricism, is there a bridge between philosophy of choice, the problem of organizing the canon of knowledge, and the problem of determining cause and consequence?