A wise old professor of philosophy defined philosophy for me as "The search for knowledge and understanding of reality using a scientific instrument called logic".

Of course, that definition is entirely repugnant to "scientists" and "philosophers" of today even though it is the only definition I've ever heard that is inherently consistent and coherent.

To illustrate my assertion let's compare and contrast speculation and assessment... ideological fancies and methodical examination... rationalism and the principles of logic.

Logic is not some magical “stuff” that can magically produce or rationalise a deceptively plausible “answer” to any specious proposition or question. Logic is the scientific rules for effective, coherent, valid reasoning. Reasoning is the associative extrapolation by deduction or induction of ideas. By itself reason can start from any impossible notion and proceed, by faulty method, to just about any “conclusion” desired by the conjurer. Logic is the scientific method that constrains reasoning to reality,

The principles of logic are based on the "law of non-contradiction"; essentially, a proposition and its contradiction cannot both be "true". Any logical assessment must be based on certainly known premises, and a contradiction of any of those premises renders the "argument" invalid and absurd. A certainly known or "self evident" premise is a commonsense observation where the only alternative to the proposition is its contrary and which contrary is self-contradictory and thus absurd. A couple of primordial examples will do to illustrate: "I exist" and “the whole is greater the part” and "a thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist" and “a thing cannot not be what it is”.

All science is composed of sub-disciplines under the great umbrella of philosophy; the great desire for knowledge and understanding of reality. A physicist can gain a PhD... which means "Doctor of Philosophy". Philo-sophy etymologically means "the love of wisdom"... that is, the desire for, and to spend oneself to get, the right answer. Of course, the law of non-contradiction always applies. The "answer" cannot be "right" if it is self-contradictory or contradictory of certainly known premises.

The application of this logical procedure leads directly to what's known as a "scientific method" which starts with an observation with the implied questions (how or why is this so) which proceeds to possible explanations (hypotheses) to be tested with logical congruity to certainly known facts, observation and experiment. Any real contradiction to any of which renders the hypothesis a "dud" or failure. This is the requirement for test ability or falsifiability... a proposition that can't be tested (with the science of logic) is not an hypothesis, it is a mere speculation with no claim to being any kind of science. As Karl Popper so elegantly put it "It's not only not right; it's not even wrong". An hypothesis that passes scientific testing is then called a theory; that is, it is considered to be a possible, or even likely, explanation for the observed phenomenon.

Rationalism, on the other hand, starts with the assumption of an ideal then proceeds to try to find plausible justifications and excuses for the assumptions. The only judgment of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the excuses proffered is whether or not they suit the ideology assumed. Logic or facts have nothing to do with it... they are irrelevant to the purpose. The "truth" is entirely determined by marketability and convenience. Quite the opposite of a "scientific method" and it is the illogical mainstay for the ideology of Relativism.

Now, let's focus this on some fundamental fashionable fancies purporting to be "science" and "philosophy".

Just about all the "scientistic" dogmas of ideological Materialism and Relativism don't come anywhere near the the most basic requirements of science or a scientific method. They can only qualify as fantastic superstitions rationalised by speculative interpretations of carefully selected and censored observations.

It is almost universally assumed that practically everything that exists is spontaneously produced from a lesser, or no, antecedent. A lovely speculation that might be an hypothesis if it it were not demonstrably absurd.

I refer particularly to the almost universal supposition of "Evolution"; the most perverse and harmful superstition ever to destroy mind and culture. It is demonstrably and certainly an impossible speculation. There is not the slightest chance of it being in any way possible unless all the relevant, well known, easily demonstrable Natural Laws and logic do not apply.

Logically (philosophically) it is impossible because a thing (like a system) that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist, and the corollary that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

Mathematically, the probability that even one simple protein (a naturally unstable complex molecule) could form by random accident is practically zero. Even the simplest live organism is composed of a concert of very complex and specialised proteins... that never, ever, could happen by random accident or series of accidents .

Physical (empirical) science also prohibits "Evolution" because it is directly contrary to the well known, intuitively and universally acknowledged, easily demonstrable, Natural Law we call entropy.

Entropy.

The best (most succinct and precise) definition (description) of entropy is as it occurs in the "Second Law of Thermodynamics"; "All ordered systems, left to themselves, tend toward maximum randomness and lowest energy (potential or differential)". That means that order naturally tends to degenerate into randomness (disorder) and energy potential tends to dissipate into a uniformity without potential.

Because energy must be dissipated in the establishment and maintenance, or sustaining, of an orderly system some con men with an ideology to sell will try to pretend that the energy consumed in the process creates the order. A sly mental trick.

But a sly mental trick is not science. Almost all of what is implied to be “philosophy” these days is not connected to reality by unassailable self-evident premises and methodical (logical) reasoning. Modern “philosophy” is a gimmick for selling ideological Snake Oil. Remember, I have defined philosophy as “ the search for knowledge and understanding of REALITY using a scientific instrument called logic”.

It is evident from the previous activities of the enemies of Reason that they will seek to avoid the implications of the science of logic by trying to surreptitiously degrade and ignore the principles of any scientific method by cunning and deceit.

I am not aware of any ideologically, morally, perverse institution that originated in ordinary people going about their ordinary lives. Every political, ideological perversity is a product of privileged, detached, occult “academic” types with a well known marketing strategy; befuddle them with rhetoric and repetition. Ivory towers are fortifications designed to prevent the ingress of commonsense and logic.

Commonsense is the foundation and preservation of science and culture.

Real science (physical and metaphysical) is founded on the commonsense laws of logic.

All the laws of logic are specific applications of the fundamental Law of non contradiction.