Ole D.

 Science impacts philosophy. It has that impact in many ways, for once they must be compatible. Philosophy is reasoning based on common experience. A philosophical claim depending on unsupported scientific propositions becomes invalid.  There must be a material world to base itself on, encountering this it is powerless - philosophy cannot strengthen claims that are unsupportable by common experience. Secondly, science is attention-grabbing. It influences people's thoughts wholly and partially, often combining ideas with scientific ones. Thirdly, philosophy is the most available means of assessing and finding obstacles, which often makes it the first applied toolset. Imagining space travel using currently held knowledge and common reasoning is philosophy, after obvious objections muted can we enquire scientifically. Most developments towards science, therefore, start philosophically and becomes scientific. Science and philosophy are therefore mutually influential.

 I disagree with the message of never giving up. I do this primarily because their messages are based on their experience instead of reason. Their conclusions are articulated to be communicated, but the messenger rarely includes supporting premises. Never do they include opposing reasons. Secondly, their ends are almost always superficial. Superficial goals are common because they are highly exposed. Superficiality misguides us to be productively and emotionally impotent. With time comes the hindsight to see the lost potential, deepening the tragedy. An unargued goal may accidentally be good, but considering the number of resources and strain on yourself and others, it rarely equilibrates.  The means of argument is rarely practiced, few ever read books on logic, rhetoric, or grammar, and rarely do they read anything at all. The primacy of emotional appeal and persuasion based on power also means our lives are not dominated by critical thinking. This is our primary source of wa...