If philosophical argumentation never establishes any position...

If philosophical argumentation never establishes any position, then the anti-philosophy position cannot be justified by philosophical argumentation. The Argument against Philosophy refutes the Argument against Philosophy. Even if this defence works, it is embarrassing if this is the best defence philosophy has. Yet, it is not obvious that the defence succeeds. It may just be that all philosophy is unreliable except anti-philosophy philosophy.

The outsider sceptic’s position is that philosophical methodology is unlikely to bring her to the truth about philosophical questions. One might argue that the sceptic used philosophical reasoning to arrive at this conclusion, and so the sceptic cannot consistently be a sceptic. However, it may just be that a small set of philosophical issues is answered and that philosophical methodology works reliably on a small set of issues, i.e., just in the areas needed to make the sceptic’s argument.

For instance, perhaps the sceptic needs probability, an account of the notion of an epistemic peer, some notion of reliability, and not much else. B. *Disunity of Science. * One could argue that science is less unified than commonly thought. Thomas Kuhn claims that the appearance of unity is largely a myth propagated by ahistorical science textbooks.[^5] It may also be that philosophy only appears to have more disagreement to us philosophers because we are most familiar with philosophy.

If we were better informed, we would realize that there is just as extensive disagreement in biology and physics over fundamental issues as there is in philosophy. This approach may deflate science, making philosophy seem less inferior in comparison, but it does not show us that philosophy is truth-tracking. Our truth-seeking outsider is not impressed. Also, deflating science also improves the comparative position of astrology, phrenology, and creationism. C. Lists of Accomplishments .

Another type of defence is that offered by Wilbur Urban, former president of the American Philosophical Association. In 1925, Urban attempted to validate the rationality and progressiveness of philosophy by listing its recent accomplishments.[^6] Urban’s list looks strange. Much of it is hard to understand, so it is unclear whether the claims of progress are worth much. The clearer items are problematic.

For one, he claims that philosophy has made progress because there is no movement back toward Kant.