Medieval scholastic philosophers didn't argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because the answer is obviously "all of them", & if that answer isn't obvious then you don't know what medieval scholastic philosophers meant by "angel". (Hint: try mentally substituting "software")
@enkiv2 There's this tendency (particularly in STEM) to dismiss fields of serious study as childish, irrelevant, or obviously wrong based on an incredibly shallow reading. This is not to say that there aren't childish, irrelevant, and obviously wrong fields; however, you can still learn a whole lot of useful stuff by studying them!
@enkiv2 This manifests in the idea of alchemy as bad chemistry, philosophy as bad physics, psychology as bad neuroscience, etc. All these fields have their own uses and different boundaries. (Alchemy as bad chemistry is particularly egregious since, for many alchemists, chemical reactions were a pretty unimportant part.)
@enkiv2 loved Hawking saying philosophy was pointless bc we have science, blissfully unaware this was a philosophical claim thus one he was hopelessly unqualified to assess