it still has a significant role to play in terms of logic and social moral calculus.
What kind of role and why is Philosophy the best for it, and not, let's say discrete mathematics and computational theory for logic or political science, sociology and psychology for the social moral calculus?
Or rather, what has philosophy contributed that those things haven't already covered or surpassed and why would those solved problems be interesting? You speak of practicality, and you haven't defined it, but I'm currently unimaginative enough that I can't think of a definition which DOESN'T require you to answer those questions.
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.
Do you really believe that professors or foundations would find beetle classification to fund JUST beetle classification? Have you actually checked what biologists do before you said this?
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 wouldn't put so much stock in your understanding; of either psychology or a so called "reductionist"'s thinking.
And if you are looking things up, you really should be working through the math, because if you aren't you are merely fooling yourself into understanding what's really going on. Human brains aren't designed for understanding physics unless it has crutches; and right now the only crutch I know of is math or incredible genius (Archimedes level) and even incredible geniuses have independently concluded that math... is still really good.
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!