And the alternative is....what?
Philosophy? Are you really suggesting that we are not also hitting the realm of diminishing returns within that discipline?
You make it sound like there's a choice involved here. Even if you're not a particularly big fan of some of the more esoteric / continental aspects of philosophy (existentialism, normative theory, all the juicy postmodern stuff), it still has a significant role to play in terms of logic and social moral calculus. Philosophy is also the pursuit of truth for truth's sake, which doesn't always lend itself to practical application. This is true of many other fields as well- I mean, do you really believe that beetle classification is going to help much in the long haul? Probably not.
The "alternatives" to science-as-science are few to none; it's the best at what it does. The alternatives to science-as-philosophy, however, are plentiful. But that's a topic for another day.
Also wait, when you say you "learn a lot about science" do you mean you're actually going and and looking up other sources, or do you think lines like 'matter is made of waves' actually constitutes understanding?
I mean that you open my eyes to how a reductionist thinks and approaches philosophical problems. It's good psychology. I do occasionally look up what you're talking about, as well.
I don't understand your position, can you please clarify it for me a bit? To me it's sounding like you oppose an endless chase in your first point and also oppose a chase with an end in sight in your second point. I'm probably misunderstanding something, because the only alternative to those two options is to stand still and die a slow, extremely boring death.
I'm not necessarily opposed to an endless chase for knowledge (which would be extremely hypocritical given my interests); I'm just highly skeptical of the high status we've given science in terms of interpreting how we see our place in the world. What I was talking about earlier is simply that logical positivism is dead, and that while science is useful, its limits and defects should invite criticism by all as regards its truth value.
In other words, I don't feel science deserves a chokehold over looking at how the world "really" is.
--
et tu, Joey Crawford?
http://i.imgur.com/HuR88.gif