It seems that many here consider philosophy a frivolous past time, that has no basis in reality but only explores the abstract. They do not care to consider the conclusions arrived at through mental processes that do not have physical evidence. Apparently anything of that sort is nothing more than speculation. Regardless of the observations or premises upon which these conclusions are built... by not having direct physical evidence they are considered baseless assertions and speculation.
The claim is that there is no value in philosophy beyond mental fun and games. And yet if I'm not mistaken the basic tenets of philosophy, logic and reasoning, without physical proof always comes before you find the proof. And conclusions that are arrived at without physical evidence... can prove to be true in the future when such evidence becomes available. Therefore to say that philosophy has no value and is always baseless assertions is proved false by the fact that certain so-called baseless assertions have later been proved true.
Now I can understand a claim that the reasoning and logic behind a persons philosophical conclusion makes their conclusion mere speculation and baseless assertion. But to claim that any and every philosophical conclusions are mere speculation and baseless assertions because they do not have so-called evidence is itself a baseless assertion.
I will readily admit that the lack of evidence for an idea means it may not be true... but lack of evidence against an idea does not mean the idea is automatically false either. Where science relies on physical evidence, philosophy relies on sound reasoning and logic which are themselves important foundations of the scientific process which is so highly valued. So just because philosophy generally deals with questions that can not be proven with physical evidence does not make it any less valid than science.
Where one is based upon, judged and accepted on the basis of physical evidence. The other is based upon, judged and accepted on the basis of logic and reasoning. And the fact is logic and reasoning are the only possible ways that physically unprovable ideas or questions can be considered.
You can not claim that philosophical conclusions are automatically false because there is no evidence for them. There is no evidence for them and no evidence against them and the only way to decide the value of these conclusions is to look at them through logic and reasoning. And therefore the same way that an argument for a philosophical idea is built upon logic and reasoning... an argument against it must be more than just "there is no evidence" and should also be built with logic and reasoning.
We can all agree that a lack of evidence does not prove or disprove anything. So when there is a lack of evidence logic and reasoning are the priority. Sometimes evidence does come to light to prove or disprove a philosophical idea... or at least a premise upon which it is based... but until then... reasoning and logic are the order of the day. And when there is no evidence for or against... they are the deciding factors. They tip the scales one way or the other... and when their is sound logic that can not be defeated for a philosophical idea... it can be considered true until proven false(whether that is by physical evidence or a sound philosophical argument against the idea). This works in exactly the same manner that an accepted scientific theory is considered true until proven false.