Thank you for teaching me things that I should know, but don't know, about colors. After a certain accident involving a carpet and ten liters of paint, I need to mix my own paint. I buy acrylic paint in small bottles and mix it into buckets of white wall paint. It saves a lot of money. Last week I chose cyan over other shades of blue because it seemed purer, but I was just guessing. Now I know it was right and I'm going to buy a bottle of magenta color too.
When it comes to philosophy, I think you are asking for too much from it. Science is the bright, glowing star. Philosophy is only its little helper.
It should not be! Philosophy should be king! Emperor! God! Why do we even believe in science except that we make a decision on philosophical grounds to do so? Why would we think even external reality exists except through a conscious philosophical decision to reject solipsism? Why do we exist at all ourselves except by resolving Camus' problem, the only "truly serious philosophical problem... suicide?" Science just got lucky.
> Last week I chose cyan over other shades of blue because it seemed purer, but I was just guessing. Now I know it was right and I'm going to buy a bottle of magenta color too.
I obviously used to think this way, and it won't hurt you at all to work with CYMK, but, it isn't likely to matter as much for houses, where muted colors are popular. The colors you can't get from RYB are purples and pinks, teals, and bright spring greens. Purples are the hardest from RYB. I recall you were trying for an ocean blue, which if it's vivid would really need cyan, but the kind of earth tones that mostly appeal to a discriminating adult eye can easily be had in RYB, or even weird spaces like purple-yellow-gray.
>>Why do we even believe in science except that we make a decision on philosophical grounds to do so?
Because we are that kind of animal. Observing and believing what we observe is part of our nature. At least of some people's nature: As you outlined above, a surprising number of people do not have the scientific mindset. Previous societies built on those people's mindset. They just had to repeat what they had heard about God and everybody liked them. Then, as you say, science just got lucky. The observers got more and more tailwind because they could achieve some useful things.
I guess you mean that we SHOULD believe in science because we have a good reason. But realistically, you and I are just like all other people in history: We believe in what we were taught to believe. And we were taught it because it works, more or less.
>>but the kind of earth tones that mostly appeal to a discriminating adult eye can easily be had in RYB, or even weird spaces like purple-yellow-gray.
That's another reason why I need to mix my own paint: the preferences of other adults fill the wallpaper market with earth tones. I painted the biggest room light yellow. Just white with a bit of yellow in it. Looks great. I will paint a bedroom in something like very light spring green (we already have two such rooms since many years ago, they are very pleasant). And you are right, white+a little yellow+a tiny bit of cyan really gives spring green.
Fair; there's obviously a "default" philosophy that most people have, which may not be correct, but which includes
* Rejecting solipsism (of course external reality exists, I can see it right there)
* Believing beauty is objective (of course beauty is a thing, I can see it right there)
* Rejecting suicide (of course death is bad, it's scary and painful)
* Believing consensus reality (duh)
* Believing you can check things empirically, AKA scientifically (duh)
Things get weird when the different bits start to contradict, but frankly I think it's usually consensus reality that's to blame.
> Observing and believing what we observe is part of our nature. At least of some people's nature: As you outlined above, a surprising number of people do not have the scientific mindset.
It really is striking to physicists how even the middle of the bell curve literally has trouble *seeing*. The curves on three slides on this powerpoint leave even many college students stymied: https://www.slideserve.com/emiko/concave-upwards#google_vignette
Physicists find that kind of limitation shocking, because for the most part we don't realize that there's anything to learn about it; we just look.
> I guess you mean that we SHOULD believe in science because we have a good reason. But realistically, you and I are just like all other people in history: We believe in what we were taught to believe. And we were taught it because it works, more or less.
We're living in a scary time. I remember giving an informal lecture years ago where I talked about how what we think of as science was probably greatly assisted by trade routes which brought widely dissimilar ways of thinking into close contact. The juxtaposition of immiscible consensus realities forced people to try to figure things out, and the fairest way involves reality tests. Many of those tests would have been trial by combat, or seeing whether the weather turned in three days, but others were clearly experimentation, as we have records for that kind of thing well over 1000 years ago.
But now the immiscible consensus realities are inescapable, they live within the same countries and cities, and people are so steeped in a postscientific electronic world that nobody goes outside to find facts; they're helpless without the Internet to tell them what's real.
> I painted the biggest room light yellow. Just white with a bit of yellow in it. Looks great. I will paint a bedroom in something like very light spring green (we already have two such rooms since many years ago, they are very pleasant). And you are right, white+a little yellow+a tiny bit of cyan really gives spring green.
Good for you! You might also try white + a little magenta + a tiny bit of cyan for a delicate lavender to remind little #6 of her gender.
Apple Pie: "I’ve been working lately on trying to figure out what to do to make philosophy work."
Good luck with that -- keep us posted on your progress in achieving that objective ... 😉🙂
Although I kinda think you're misreading the field. Some of it "works" and some of it doesn't -- arguably, philosophy is something of a record of false starts and dead ends, of "seeing things through a glass darkly". Somewhat unreasonable to judge philosophy by the same standards you use to judge science and mathematics.
But that reminds me of a couple of passages from George Boole's "The Laws of Thought", particularly the concluding chapter on "Constitution of the Intellect":
Boole: "The following lines, ... ascribed to Timon the Sillograph, are not devoid of pathos:
Be mine, to partial views no more confined,
Or skeptic doubts, the truth-illumined mind!
For, long deceived, yet still on Truth intent,
Life's waning years in wanderings wild are spent.
Still restless thought the same high quest essays,
And still the One, the All, eludes my gaze." [pg. 412]
And, along the same line:
"Herein too may be felt the powerlessness of mere Logic, the insufficiency of the profoundest knowledge of the laws of the understanding, to resolve those problems which lie nearer to our hearts, as progressive years strip way from our life the illusions of its golden dawn." [pg. 416]
Apple Pie: "Obviously plenty of people, like Jesse Tatum, don’t see the same problems with the discipline that I do, or Lorenzo Warby does, or David Stove does."
Thanks for the link to David Stove's article, although, as I'd commented earlier, I think he's somewhat wide of the mark on a couple of points.
As for Lorenzo Warby, that particular post of his is something of a hatchet job on a paper by Paul Griffiths, lately of the University of Sydney (now retired), a philosopher of science and biology, and co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy". Both Warby and his hostess, Helen Dale, are working on something of an article of faith that sex is immutable, and both get quite "peeved", rather "offended" when one points to the sound reasons for the biological definitions for the sexes, and for their logical consequences. For which I've been banned there and had all of my comments deleted:
Sorry to learn that, Steersman. I've had my comments deleted on occasion - it's very frustrating. I've learned to keep my comments shorter, not only to decrease the likelihood of writing something offensive, but to minimize the amount of effort lost.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you that if we insist on defining sex as the production of large or small gametes, then quite a few people are just going to be other, and it's reasonable to say that by that definition people's biological sex literally changes through the course of their lives. I don't think it's a very good definition, any more than the classic definition for "life" that excludes viruses (because viruses invade cells rather than having their own cells).
I will add, though, that your link there shows Helen saying she's tired of discussing the issue of sex, and warning you that she'll ban you for continuing to talk about it. Free speech is very important, but it can be exploited by sea lions ( https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/ ). So far as I can tell, you were being a sea lion.
A sea lion, you say! Who? me? 😉🙂 I've certainly been "accused" of that before, though -- in my defense, Your Honour -- I wasn't hassling either Dale or Warby -- at least there -- but only some of their commentators. If they're going to peddle antiscientific claptrap then I think Dale needs to take that into consideration.
In any case, thanks for the sympathy and the suggestion. Not a lot of skin off my nose, and it gave me some further opportunities for exposition. And I tend to print out conversations, partly to forestall such eventualities, and partly because I'm not sure of the long-term viability of Substack. Some of the principals abandoned their earlier "Letter Wiki" project, and everything disappeared into the great Bit Bucket in the Sky -- still rather peeved.
As for the "gametic definitions", they ARE what mainstream biology stipulates. Sort of like the rules of the road -- one CAN complain to City Hall, but if one speeds or drives without a license or insurance then one can wind up in the slammer. And there ARE solid reasons for those definitions, not least of which is universality, a fairly durable principle, not just in philosophy, but in a wide range of sciences and mathematical applications from "dynamical systems" to statistics to taxonomy:
You might have some interest in that paper -- "What are biological sexes?" -- by Paul Griffiths, lately of the University of Sydney (now retired), philosopher of science, and co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy":
Those definitions are a central organizing principle or method of comparing reproductive traits in a wide range of anisogamous species. One can't reasonably compare those phenomena in different species if one is forced to have different definitions for the sexes in each one. For instance, see the article on "Sequential Hermaphroditism" -- a meaningless or contradictory phrase if one is obliged to use the folk-biology definitions Dale and Company want to use for humans for all of those other species:
Although a bunch of feminists have bastardized that article because they apparently objected to the more or less explicit characterization of clownfish as sexless for large portions of their life cycles:
Wikipedia: "If the female dies, the male gains weight and BECOMES the female for that group. The largest non-breeding fish then sexually matures and BECOMES the male of the group."
Can't "become" a male if it is a male right from the moment of hatching or conception. The latter of which is precisely what those peddling the folk-biology are insisting is the case for humans. A case of special pleading writ large.
Largely why I'm rather "peeved" by the many who seem bound and determined to repudiate, bastardize, and abrogate those biological definitions.
STEM fields have an advantage to some degree - propositions can be either falsified or made so complicated to deal with observations that they fail the test of Occams razor (some observational fields have sparse data and time scales that do not map well with human lifespans, making experimental validation / disproof difficult).
That said, I had to study color science when I was a researcher at Kokak Research labs working on color copying technology 50+ years ago. Red-blue-green works for additive systems - think OLED and classic color displays. Cyan (minus red) - magenta (minus green) and yellow (minus blue) works for subtractive systems. (dyes, paints) The two approaches are complementary - one is additive, the other is subtractive, hence their naming. There are additional complications, such as many yellow pigments have such high scattering power that you want to put them on the bottom of the color stack.
> STEM fields have an advantage to some degree - propositions can be either falsified or made so complicated to deal with observations that they fail the test of Occams razor (some observational fields have sparse data and time scales that do not map well with human lifespans, making experimental validation / disproof difficult).
The trouble is that they're up against some extremely difficult challenges, and the lack of clear tools for falsification makes it rough. Occam's Razor is an idea, though, and I appreciate your comment here giving me a possible hint!
> There are additional complications, such as many yellow pigments have such high scattering power that you want to put them on the bottom of the color stack.
I never heard yellow needed to be at the bottom due to scattering. How long were you working on that?
It was well known at the time. I think the highest quality color printers learned early to put the yellow on the bottom of their 4 color printing stack. It was probably known early in the 1900's. once people started doing high quality 4 color printing. It wasn't a problem with photo printing because that is dye based, as is most ink jet printing. But when you are using pigments, it matters. We were doing pigment based photoelectrophoresis for high resolution imaging - but trying to do it in mixtures of pigments tended to muddy the colors.
"Some might argue that answering questions like this is philosophers’ job; unfortunately it’s been a few thousand years now, and they haven’t succeeded yet."
They get waylaid by empire-builders totalitarianising the world and those who world in it. That's how we got religion, and now people think religion is primary colour of worlding.
Pyrrhonian skepticism is a good series of methods here, it's a type of inquiry focussed epistemology but too early for our sciencey bits. It sees those who double-down on doctrine and dogma as anxious misfits but has been too conservative to survive outside of soteriological frameworks, and even then, only just. Buddhism is another example but even that gets wacky once whacked by politics and empire ( see pure land buddhism).
"For Philosophy to Work, it has to Beat Consensus Reality"
To do that we have to deal with how that intersubjective negotiation is managed or not managed. (Calling it 'consensus' is too kind). Here we get into all sorts of bother with the confounded nuisance of the agency/structure imbroglio. At the moment adding science scares peeps whose feelings mean they reject an approach which doesn't indulge those feelings, which does not grant them power or greatness, which of course is a basically a clusterfuck in any 'consensus'. Every conspiracy theorists is emperor in their paranoia. They know the truth, it is their feelings, without feelings they do not exist, they must maintain the feelings, and so maintain the world, and save it without sacrifice.
You've written in the past that you'd like to exclude low Honesty people, who I interpret as basically being in the way. Are you sure philosophy has to deal with of the intersubjective negotiation is managed or not managed? What if philosophers just did what scientists classically have done, and ignored people who raised irrelevant objections? (I'm just saying that if I have to sit around biting my nails over whether someone's feelings might be bruised, I have zero chance for revolutionizing, by myself, an entire field that has resisted improvement for the last umpteen centuries.)
Thank you for teaching me things that I should know, but don't know, about colors. After a certain accident involving a carpet and ten liters of paint, I need to mix my own paint. I buy acrylic paint in small bottles and mix it into buckets of white wall paint. It saves a lot of money. Last week I chose cyan over other shades of blue because it seemed purer, but I was just guessing. Now I know it was right and I'm going to buy a bottle of magenta color too.
When it comes to philosophy, I think you are asking for too much from it. Science is the bright, glowing star. Philosophy is only its little helper.
It should not be! Philosophy should be king! Emperor! God! Why do we even believe in science except that we make a decision on philosophical grounds to do so? Why would we think even external reality exists except through a conscious philosophical decision to reject solipsism? Why do we exist at all ourselves except by resolving Camus' problem, the only "truly serious philosophical problem... suicide?" Science just got lucky.
> Last week I chose cyan over other shades of blue because it seemed purer, but I was just guessing. Now I know it was right and I'm going to buy a bottle of magenta color too.
I obviously used to think this way, and it won't hurt you at all to work with CYMK, but, it isn't likely to matter as much for houses, where muted colors are popular. The colors you can't get from RYB are purples and pinks, teals, and bright spring greens. Purples are the hardest from RYB. I recall you were trying for an ocean blue, which if it's vivid would really need cyan, but the kind of earth tones that mostly appeal to a discriminating adult eye can easily be had in RYB, or even weird spaces like purple-yellow-gray.
I love this painting by Anders Zorn, which uses only black, white, red, and yellow-brown: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Sj%C3%A4lvportr%C3%A4tt_av_Anders_Zorn_1896.jpg
>>Why do we even believe in science except that we make a decision on philosophical grounds to do so?
Because we are that kind of animal. Observing and believing what we observe is part of our nature. At least of some people's nature: As you outlined above, a surprising number of people do not have the scientific mindset. Previous societies built on those people's mindset. They just had to repeat what they had heard about God and everybody liked them. Then, as you say, science just got lucky. The observers got more and more tailwind because they could achieve some useful things.
I guess you mean that we SHOULD believe in science because we have a good reason. But realistically, you and I are just like all other people in history: We believe in what we were taught to believe. And we were taught it because it works, more or less.
>>but the kind of earth tones that mostly appeal to a discriminating adult eye can easily be had in RYB, or even weird spaces like purple-yellow-gray.
That's another reason why I need to mix my own paint: the preferences of other adults fill the wallpaper market with earth tones. I painted the biggest room light yellow. Just white with a bit of yellow in it. Looks great. I will paint a bedroom in something like very light spring green (we already have two such rooms since many years ago, they are very pleasant). And you are right, white+a little yellow+a tiny bit of cyan really gives spring green.
> Because we are that kind of animal.
Fair; there's obviously a "default" philosophy that most people have, which may not be correct, but which includes
* Rejecting solipsism (of course external reality exists, I can see it right there)
* Believing beauty is objective (of course beauty is a thing, I can see it right there)
* Rejecting suicide (of course death is bad, it's scary and painful)
* Believing consensus reality (duh)
* Believing you can check things empirically, AKA scientifically (duh)
Things get weird when the different bits start to contradict, but frankly I think it's usually consensus reality that's to blame.
> Observing and believing what we observe is part of our nature. At least of some people's nature: As you outlined above, a surprising number of people do not have the scientific mindset.
It really is striking to physicists how even the middle of the bell curve literally has trouble *seeing*. The curves on three slides on this powerpoint leave even many college students stymied: https://www.slideserve.com/emiko/concave-upwards#google_vignette
Physicists find that kind of limitation shocking, because for the most part we don't realize that there's anything to learn about it; we just look.
> I guess you mean that we SHOULD believe in science because we have a good reason. But realistically, you and I are just like all other people in history: We believe in what we were taught to believe. And we were taught it because it works, more or less.
We're living in a scary time. I remember giving an informal lecture years ago where I talked about how what we think of as science was probably greatly assisted by trade routes which brought widely dissimilar ways of thinking into close contact. The juxtaposition of immiscible consensus realities forced people to try to figure things out, and the fairest way involves reality tests. Many of those tests would have been trial by combat, or seeing whether the weather turned in three days, but others were clearly experimentation, as we have records for that kind of thing well over 1000 years ago.
But now the immiscible consensus realities are inescapable, they live within the same countries and cities, and people are so steeped in a postscientific electronic world that nobody goes outside to find facts; they're helpless without the Internet to tell them what's real.
> I painted the biggest room light yellow. Just white with a bit of yellow in it. Looks great. I will paint a bedroom in something like very light spring green (we already have two such rooms since many years ago, they are very pleasant). And you are right, white+a little yellow+a tiny bit of cyan really gives spring green.
Good for you! You might also try white + a little magenta + a tiny bit of cyan for a delicate lavender to remind little #6 of her gender.
Apple Pie: "I’ve been working lately on trying to figure out what to do to make philosophy work."
Good luck with that -- keep us posted on your progress in achieving that objective ... 😉🙂
Although I kinda think you're misreading the field. Some of it "works" and some of it doesn't -- arguably, philosophy is something of a record of false starts and dead ends, of "seeing things through a glass darkly". Somewhat unreasonable to judge philosophy by the same standards you use to judge science and mathematics.
But that reminds me of a couple of passages from George Boole's "The Laws of Thought", particularly the concluding chapter on "Constitution of the Intellect":
Boole: "The following lines, ... ascribed to Timon the Sillograph, are not devoid of pathos:
Be mine, to partial views no more confined,
Or skeptic doubts, the truth-illumined mind!
For, long deceived, yet still on Truth intent,
Life's waning years in wanderings wild are spent.
Still restless thought the same high quest essays,
And still the One, the All, eludes my gaze." [pg. 412]
And, along the same line:
"Herein too may be felt the powerlessness of mere Logic, the insufficiency of the profoundest knowledge of the laws of the understanding, to resolve those problems which lie nearer to our hearts, as progressive years strip way from our life the illusions of its golden dawn." [pg. 416]
Apple Pie: "Obviously plenty of people, like Jesse Tatum, don’t see the same problems with the discipline that I do, or Lorenzo Warby does, or David Stove does."
Thanks for the link to David Stove's article, although, as I'd commented earlier, I think he's somewhat wide of the mark on a couple of points.
https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/philosophy-is-a-residuum-of-failure/comment/46774772
As for Lorenzo Warby, that particular post of his is something of a hatchet job on a paper by Paul Griffiths, lately of the University of Sydney (now retired), a philosopher of science and biology, and co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy". Both Warby and his hostess, Helen Dale, are working on something of an article of faith that sex is immutable, and both get quite "peeved", rather "offended" when one points to the sound reasons for the biological definitions for the sexes, and for their logical consequences. For which I've been banned there and had all of my comments deleted:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-spergy-letter-project
Clearly, not just the proverbial "Woke" who engage in "cancel culture", who peddle quite unscientific dogma, who get "offended" by the facts.
Sorry to learn that, Steersman. I've had my comments deleted on occasion - it's very frustrating. I've learned to keep my comments shorter, not only to decrease the likelihood of writing something offensive, but to minimize the amount of effort lost.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you that if we insist on defining sex as the production of large or small gametes, then quite a few people are just going to be other, and it's reasonable to say that by that definition people's biological sex literally changes through the course of their lives. I don't think it's a very good definition, any more than the classic definition for "life" that excludes viruses (because viruses invade cells rather than having their own cells).
I will add, though, that your link there shows Helen saying she's tired of discussing the issue of sex, and warning you that she'll ban you for continuing to talk about it. Free speech is very important, but it can be exploited by sea lions ( https://wondermark.com/c/1k62/ ). So far as I can tell, you were being a sea lion.
A sea lion, you say! Who? me? 😉🙂 I've certainly been "accused" of that before, though -- in my defense, Your Honour -- I wasn't hassling either Dale or Warby -- at least there -- but only some of their commentators. If they're going to peddle antiscientific claptrap then I think Dale needs to take that into consideration.
In any case, thanks for the sympathy and the suggestion. Not a lot of skin off my nose, and it gave me some further opportunities for exposition. And I tend to print out conversations, partly to forestall such eventualities, and partly because I'm not sure of the long-term viability of Substack. Some of the principals abandoned their earlier "Letter Wiki" project, and everything disappeared into the great Bit Bucket in the Sky -- still rather peeved.
As for the "gametic definitions", they ARE what mainstream biology stipulates. Sort of like the rules of the road -- one CAN complain to City Hall, but if one speeds or drives without a license or insurance then one can wind up in the slammer. And there ARE solid reasons for those definitions, not least of which is universality, a fairly durable principle, not just in philosophy, but in a wide range of sciences and mathematical applications from "dynamical systems" to statistics to taxonomy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality
You might have some interest in that paper -- "What are biological sexes?" -- by Paul Griffiths, lately of the University of Sydney (now retired), philosopher of science, and co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Those definitions are a central organizing principle or method of comparing reproductive traits in a wide range of anisogamous species. One can't reasonably compare those phenomena in different species if one is forced to have different definitions for the sexes in each one. For instance, see the article on "Sequential Hermaphroditism" -- a meaningless or contradictory phrase if one is obliged to use the folk-biology definitions Dale and Company want to use for humans for all of those other species:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
Although a bunch of feminists have bastardized that article because they apparently objected to the more or less explicit characterization of clownfish as sexless for large portions of their life cycles:
Wikipedia: "If the female dies, the male gains weight and BECOMES the female for that group. The largest non-breeding fish then sexually matures and BECOMES the male of the group."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequential_hermaphroditism&oldid=890717544
Can't "become" a male if it is a male right from the moment of hatching or conception. The latter of which is precisely what those peddling the folk-biology are insisting is the case for humans. A case of special pleading writ large.
Largely why I'm rather "peeved" by the many who seem bound and determined to repudiate, bastardize, and abrogate those biological definitions.
STEM fields have an advantage to some degree - propositions can be either falsified or made so complicated to deal with observations that they fail the test of Occams razor (some observational fields have sparse data and time scales that do not map well with human lifespans, making experimental validation / disproof difficult).
That said, I had to study color science when I was a researcher at Kokak Research labs working on color copying technology 50+ years ago. Red-blue-green works for additive systems - think OLED and classic color displays. Cyan (minus red) - magenta (minus green) and yellow (minus blue) works for subtractive systems. (dyes, paints) The two approaches are complementary - one is additive, the other is subtractive, hence their naming. There are additional complications, such as many yellow pigments have such high scattering power that you want to put them on the bottom of the color stack.
> STEM fields have an advantage to some degree - propositions can be either falsified or made so complicated to deal with observations that they fail the test of Occams razor (some observational fields have sparse data and time scales that do not map well with human lifespans, making experimental validation / disproof difficult).
Those advantage are enormous; I know I give the impression that I'm belittling philosophers, but I'm told that philosophers are among the smartest people around: https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2013/07/intelligenceiqgre-by-academic-field/
The trouble is that they're up against some extremely difficult challenges, and the lack of clear tools for falsification makes it rough. Occam's Razor is an idea, though, and I appreciate your comment here giving me a possible hint!
> There are additional complications, such as many yellow pigments have such high scattering power that you want to put them on the bottom of the color stack.
I never heard yellow needed to be at the bottom due to scattering. How long were you working on that?
It was well known at the time. I think the highest quality color printers learned early to put the yellow on the bottom of their 4 color printing stack. It was probably known early in the 1900's. once people started doing high quality 4 color printing. It wasn't a problem with photo printing because that is dye based, as is most ink jet printing. But when you are using pigments, it matters. We were doing pigment based photoelectrophoresis for high resolution imaging - but trying to do it in mixtures of pigments tended to muddy the colors.
"Some might argue that answering questions like this is philosophers’ job; unfortunately it’s been a few thousand years now, and they haven’t succeeded yet."
They get waylaid by empire-builders totalitarianising the world and those who world in it. That's how we got religion, and now people think religion is primary colour of worlding.
Pyrrhonian skepticism is a good series of methods here, it's a type of inquiry focussed epistemology but too early for our sciencey bits. It sees those who double-down on doctrine and dogma as anxious misfits but has been too conservative to survive outside of soteriological frameworks, and even then, only just. Buddhism is another example but even that gets wacky once whacked by politics and empire ( see pure land buddhism).
"For Philosophy to Work, it has to Beat Consensus Reality"
To do that we have to deal with how that intersubjective negotiation is managed or not managed. (Calling it 'consensus' is too kind). Here we get into all sorts of bother with the confounded nuisance of the agency/structure imbroglio. At the moment adding science scares peeps whose feelings mean they reject an approach which doesn't indulge those feelings, which does not grant them power or greatness, which of course is a basically a clusterfuck in any 'consensus'. Every conspiracy theorists is emperor in their paranoia. They know the truth, it is their feelings, without feelings they do not exist, they must maintain the feelings, and so maintain the world, and save it without sacrifice.
https://www.academia.edu/56330314/Ancient_scepticism_a_chance_for_happiness
You've written in the past that you'd like to exclude low Honesty people, who I interpret as basically being in the way. Are you sure philosophy has to deal with of the intersubjective negotiation is managed or not managed? What if philosophers just did what scientists classically have done, and ignored people who raised irrelevant objections? (I'm just saying that if I have to sit around biting my nails over whether someone's feelings might be bruised, I have zero chance for revolutionizing, by myself, an entire field that has resisted improvement for the last umpteen centuries.)
politics is the art of the possible