Yeah, we are okay. And no, I do not think this view of philosophy accurately represents the field. Though, I do think it cleaves toward something with a bit of truth in it, so like, I think you're half wrong. I mean, I can leave a funny quote here:
And so in some sense I think that's right, and sort of confirms what you said, that even if found out for what they truly intended, and it was wrong, many philosophers won't fess up to it and will make excuses and claim to be misunderstood. However, I do think many philosophers take solid punches to their main views, accept it, and move on. Wittgenstein certainly adopted and abandoned a few entirely new, and extremely influential, views once he thought the old one was inadequate. Nietzsche evolved thought and the impressions he gives in later writings don't always work well with earlier ones. Evolution and recanting of views does frequently happen. As well, not every view gets "defeated", so to say. Several of Hume's views, while not
universally accepted, are staples of philosophical thought with solid schools backing them. At a certain point, which philosophical theory one chooses doesn't have a decisive argument, and each have strong and weak points. I also think many good philosophers aren't as dogmatic as it seems from the outside, because dogmatic philosophers make more of a spectacle and are thus more visible.
Also I would make a particularly poor philosopher, as I'm not a good writer. Which is why it's not my study. Also I'd like to address your earlier claim, particularly this post:
Which I found distasteful, by talking a bit about the implicit scientism of your views. You claimed philosophy is irrelevant. I'd argue that any investigation into the topic shows the opposite is true. I'll really just respond with a quote:
Einstein didn't just say this, he
developed an entire influential philosophical theory of truth (many of the quotes from Einstein in here are good to read on this. very good. don't read the whole article if you don't want, but look at Einstein's quotes, because he's basically the role model for a philosopher-scientist). Heisenberg wrote a book, Physics and Philosophy, where he discusses the relationship between physics and philosophy in a fair and balanced way. I should add, Heisenberg is quoted as attributing his ability to think to reading Plato and other philosophers as a child, his mother was a classics scholar. So two of the absolute best scientific minds of the 20th century were highly influenced by and influential in philosophy.
Of course, there are also counter examples. Feynman spoke badly of philosophy, as did Stephen Hawking. However, it's too common for people to overestimate Hawking's abilities by quite a bit.
As you'll see here, he isn't as groundbreaking a scientist as it might seem from his popularity. Andy Buckley suggests this is due to the wheelchair spectacle, and frankly I think he's right. Of course, when Stephen Hawking indicts philosophers for failing to keep up with science.. well, he's not wrong about that. There definitely is a growing rift between the sciences and philosophy. And that's not a good thing, it's not science progressing beyond philosophy, it's a cultural calamity that's actually just bad for everybody.
Now, let's be clear here. I'm not saying everyone needs to study philosophy. Or that you can't be a good scientist without philosophy. Or that if you don't study intersectional feminist queer theory you'll never invent anything cool. But my view is basically similar to Einstein: studying philosophy can help free your mind of prejudices and biases. Because there are many very clever people who have thought very hard about a lot of important things, and those are worth reading if you want a boost to your thinking skills.
(So am I officially a philosopher now?)