The way I see it is that philosophers have always been around to step in when things got messy. I mean, messy with terms, for example.

So what I am saying - the science is right there, in the article that brainethics critizises. Just the question of how to interpret the findings and how to synthesize them with the rest of the ontology remains.

And I do not believe that anybody except philosopher would willingly be able or even want to do that publicly

From the other hand - every day literally unreadable amount of articles gets published - there is simply so much science and so much philosophy that a critical control has been lost a long time ago.

So I don't think that anybody has ...

The way I see it is that philosophers have always been around to step in when things got messy. I mean, messy with terms, for example.

So what I am saying - the science is right there, in the article that brainethics critizises. Just the question of how to interpret the findings and how to synthesize them with the rest of the ontology remains.

And I do not believe that anybody except philosopher would willingly be able or even want to do that publicly

From the other hand - every day literally unreadable amount of articles gets published - there is simply so much science and so much philosophy that a critical control has been lost a long time ago.

So I don't think that anybody has the power -- or the will - to set everybody on the "right tracks" any more. Not in case of terms or on anything else for that matter. We live in an informational anarchy.

What concerns "the end of philosphy", well, I'd say that Heidegger got (or atleast tought that he did) there a bit beofre us. The clip that Antara referes to, well, I'd say that the title is pretty far fetched as the parallel between aesthetics and morality has been in the tradition for a pretty long time already, and by that I mean inside philosophy, so no worries there at all.