>Define "philosophers", "pseudointellectuals", and what "more than" means.
You're setting a trap like a usual philosopher does. Whatever meaning I'm going to assign to them, you're going to deny and say "that's not what a philosopher/pseudointellectual is, (continues constructing a meaningless definition that suits you)." Stop with the word play, you know what it means. If you're asking for more, I'll assume it's sophistry/trolling.
>I'm not going to bother linking it, but there's a study from Loyola University proving a strong correlation between mathematical and philosophical aptitude - that refutes your first point.
Oh, I'm not going to bother linking it, but there is a study from Yorkshire university proving that there is no correlation between mathematical and philosophical aptitude - that refutes that study. Post the link or I'll assume that's just babbling/trolling.
>And second, you're obviously using "they" as a reference to "pseudointellectuals", not "philosophers", as in no way does any inherent quality of philosophy dictate a relation to "whatever that's popular."
Tying to make it seem more complicated than it is. Nice try, faggot.
>The biggest hole in this argument is that you can't define "contribute... to humanity."
Again, trying to trap me in this whole definition shit. Is this a b8?
>Why not question a philosopher on their pseudo-intellectualism, their ineptitude in mathematics and science, their concern with "babbling" about whatever's popular and their habits of garnering attention, and then lastly ask what their contribution to society is?
Because they won't answer honestly, and play with words and make it seem that they've contributed a lot to society. Pure rhetoric and sophistry.