One of the painful things about having studied philosophy is experiencing the fact that nearly everyone on the Internet are absolutely sure having read a few paragraphs about the topic makes them an expert.

Astronomy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat by analyzing the raw image data of several insanely sensitive cameras, then finding out what the cat looks like, what it looked like right after birth, where it'll be next year and what its gut microbiome consists of, based on a slight reddish hue in its fur.

Alternatively: Astronomy is like being in a dark room and saying "Something seems off. There must be a black cat in here."

Lol, all of those are philosophies. Philosophy isn't separate to science, or theology, of whatever. It's the bigger group they're all part of.

This meme is making these different disciplines answer questions they were never intended to answer. It's like complaining that a school principal isn't out there teaching students: that's not their role and it would be silly to expect them to do otherwise.

Philosophers would ask something like, "what is a cat?"

Metaphysicians would ask something like, "how can we know that the cat truly exists?"

Theologians would ask something like, "what does the Bible say about cats?"

Remember, who made the flashlight for the scientist? The philosopher.

Metaphysics isn't looking for a black cat that isn't there. It's assuming that there is a black cat even though there might not be one, because flashlights don't exist yet.

Science is more like systematically searching the room while exhaustively documenting all findings to define every place the cat wasn’t, as well as where it was. Then you release the cat and do it several more times. Then you invite your peers to come in the room and try to achieve the same results, comparing their findings with yours, so everyone can have a better chance of finding the cat in future attempts.

Science isn’t easy. It is precise because it is tediously thorough.

But observing the cat with the flashlight fundamentally affects the cat.

Could it be me who doesnt know what metaphysics is? No, a whole sub-field of philosophy is actually useless and none of them see it.

Also hilarious seeing "philosophy" referred to like its a method you can use and not a whole field including everything from ethics, political philosophy, philosophy of religion, epistemology, aesthetics, etc.

tips fedora

I think religion is represented wrong. It should read :

Being in a dark room looking for a black cat, believing that it is there.

I get where the OP is coming from and many religious people have been loud, vocal and hostile recently but it's not a core principle of religion to be that way.

Meh. Natural sciences and philosophy/methaphisics are quite closer/more intimately linked than you seem to think.

What's the one that's in a perfectly lit empty white room, with a decently sized black cat thats covered in arrows flashing towards it with a loud siren blaring from it and signs saying "the cat you are looking for is right here!", who still can't find the cat?

Problem: Can a black cat be found in a dark room?

Hypothesis: yes

Variable: flashlight

Control: no flashlight

Findings: "v" group found the cat; the "c" group didn't.

Theory: You can find a cat in a dark room using a flashlight.

Law: cats land feet first (indisputable)

Physics is like shooting balls at the cat and registering the sounds of pain to draw a shape of the creature. Except that it turns out to be also a dog at the same time

Philosophy is often more like looking for things that can't be seen with a flashlight but hypothesizing that they must exist and proving it logically.

We wouldnt be in this mess if the fucking philosopher hadnt come up with it.

You are in a pitch-black room and hear a noise. A noise you can't describe properly, you've never heard or seen this creature before but it has a high pitched wail.

A man called Philosophy walks in the room. He hears the cry and takes some time to think. He names this creature the cat and deduces that it must be as big as a bear and as fierce as a lion. This creature must be dangerous. He tells you stories about strange exotic creatures, ones with black fur and long tails. These creatures have nails as sharp as swords and mean only harm. He tells you to stay back and listen to his thoughts as he contemplates more.

Then another man called Theology walks in. He too hears the creature yelling. Over some time, he begins to listen to the different tones of the noise this creature makes. He hears a shriek and thinks it's telling you to get back. It hears a purr and tells you it's playful. He begins to think it's communicating and assigns meaning to the creature's noise. He tells you to have faith in his belief and to follow the creatures demands. He tells you to offer tithes and sacrifices so you too can find meaning in this creature.

And, finally, a last man named Science walks into the room. He hears the cat and listens to the others propositions. He sets up ways to test his hypotheses. He thinks the cat must be big, so he throws some food near the creature and hears its footsteps; they aren't stomps, they are something more elegant. He no longer thinks he and Philosophy were correct. Because he thinks it's no longer big, he walks up to the creature and tries to get a closer look. He gets bitten and falls back to the others. Over time he tells you that Theology and Philosophy were right on some things and wrong on the others. He admits that he can be wrong himself but will correct and change his understand of this creature as he learns. He also offers little answers to the creature's as the others. You don't understand exactly how he works, you are merely a layman with little education.

So, which of the men do you believe?