So might I conclude that -- with regard to functionality to the human race ...and despite your nod to ontology -- your position is that science is the "wheat" and philosophy the "chaff"?Originally posted by Tiberius
...The mystics remain pretty much on their own and have been saying the same things for thousands of years - none of which have affected humanity's ability to control it's environment (for better or worse) anywhere near as reliably as science. This efficacy is proof that science is a good method for obtaining knowledge. If any other methods worked as well then they might have an argument to make. So far, ALL other methods fail miserably at obtaining facts.
Other branches of philosophy may be great at giving us insights into living a good life, ethics, and self improvement, but as far as gathering new information about our environment - they must all fall into, within, and in-line with scientific consensus on these matters or else they are utterly useless (not to mention "looney").
Also, do you make a distinction between mysticism and metaphysics?