Philosophers and seeking answers

A short reflection on why academic philosophy doesn't converge. Scott's diagnosis inverts the usual complaint: the problem isn't that philosophers never solve problems, it's that they produce too many proposed solutions — so, unlike science (where you can look up the settled answer), anyone wanting to know which philosophical solution is correct must become nearly as good a philosopher as whoever solved it, because the field can't settle disputes by experiment the way science can. He's careful not to dismiss philosophy merely for disagreeing with him (a sarcastic friend's jab), but won't excuse a discipline that goes so long without settling even the easier questions. Ends on the open question: how do you distinguish a field that doesn't really seek answers from one that seeks but can't converge — and how could philosophy reduce internal disagreement short of the 'kick out everyone who disagrees with Less Wrong' move?

Quality 66 · Strong. Solid-to-Strong. The 'too many solutions, not too few' inversion is a genuine, memorable insight about disciplinary convergence, but the post is short (370w), partly autobiographical, and ends by posing rather than answering its question, so it sits mid-Strong-boundary.

Claude’s paradigm shift 38 · Slight. Moderate — the reframe of philosophy's problem as over-production of solutions and inability to winnow is a fresh angle.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. A memorable meta-insight on why philosophy doesn't converge ('too many solutions, not too few'); an idea-level contribution confined to discourse, no material reach → RWI 2.