If philosophy wants to remain relevant in advancing knowledge, it needs to consider how it might adopt the same commitment to empirically testing and refining theoretical ideas that made the sciences successful.

Scientific progress has come from proposing competing theories and subjecting them to empirical testing, not from restricting inquiry to "unproblematic common ground" stripped of theoretical commitments. Without that process, there is no real mechanism for progress - only endless conceptual debate.

I share your annoyance. This is precisely why the sciences overtook philosophy centuries ago in their ability to generate reliable knowledge.

If philosophy wants to remain relevant in advancing knowledge, it needs to consider how it might adopt the same commitment to empirically testing and refining theoretical ideas that made the sciences successful.

Scientific progress has come from proposing competing theories and subjecting them to empirical testing, not from restricting inquiry to "unproblematic common ground" stripped of theoretical commitments. Without that process, there is no real mechanism for progress - only endless conceptual debate.

I share your concern. This is precisely why the sciences overtook philosophy centuries ago in their ability to generate reliable knowledge.