WHY IS PHILOSOPHY NOW RELEGATED TO THE PAST AS WAS THEOLOGY? Painful truth: (a)

WHY IS PHILOSOPHY NOW RELEGATED TO THE PAST AS WAS THEOLOGY?
Painful truth: (a) science (truth) and philosophy(choice) are fully demarcated, a process which began with Darwin and ended in the 60s with the failure of the analytic movement’s last attempt to save it. (b) philosophy is still predicated on premises insufficient for it’s ambitions (sets). (c) I’m referred to as a philosopher and a social scientist only because we have not yet fully disambiguated the distinction between the two. But I consider myself a scientist, in all four of the domains: formal, physical(before), behavioral(during), evolutionary(after).

Can one produce a science (epistemology) and resulting logic (paradigm of first principles, grammar, vocabulary) of decidability, and subsequently of testimony (truth), ethics(cooperation), and scale (politics, group strategy), and aesthetics( goods)? Of course. At present, as far as I know, the discipline of philosophy is capable only of integrating findings of science (testimony), into various paradigms of *choice* instead of truth. Truth is settled science. And with that philosophy is limited to the selection of preferences within that which is not false and not irreciprocal (immoral) and not devolutionary (harmful).

However, given that anthropomorphism, mythology, thoeology, philosophy, history, the sciences, the logics place increasing burdens on human knowledge and cognition, and especially burdens on bias and priors, then there will always be those who are trapped within the limits of their abilities to reason by more complex means just as there are those trapped within the limits of their ability to use mathematics. In particular my struggle (our organization’s struggle) is the repetition of the problem of transitioning people from mysticism to empiricism.

However, the tendency to oversimplify to ideal types, or slihgtly better use of sets, is human cognitive nature, while converting from ideal types and sets to series (measurements) and supply vs demand (adversarial equilibria) is somethign that appears very difficult to teach people to do, just as it is difficult to teach them calculus and analysis. Despite that those measures within human experience are much easier to grasp than the abstract relations we use with number systems.

IMO studying philosophy is useful largely in the suppression of human ignorance and error It is not sufficient for the provision of problem solving that has been achieved through the greater complexity of the sciences of testimony.