Well I might think so when your opening post on the matter is this
So I'll let you objectively ponder if my suspicion is groundless or not.
It's true you made slight progress because I had patience and didn't simply respond with a snappy one-line personal attack. But your insight is pretty shallow so far and I think we can agree you resorted more to ad hominem rather than approaching the substance of the question w/o nitpicking or deconstructing the meaning behind certain phrases. Like I said, if the subject is appealing and you have something meaningful to add, by all means go ahead.
There is no progress because you are stuck trying to argue why you should be able to talk about a subject without studying it. I didnt call you stupid, my initial post has no mention of such word, so how you understood this way is beyond me. There is no personal attacks from my part (you however insists to talk about by "but hurt" or something). I gave you the most deep insight you could receive. Use it as you want.
Regarding Wittgenstein, he grandiosely suggested the Tractus to be the last radical theory change in philosophy. What I meant by "he was obviously on to something" is that indeed philosophy might need a major change, wich implied by my OP is IMO its permanent assimilation in "scientific thought"(or how I grandly put it, die). So the point is pretty simple, not a critical analysis of the Tractatus(unless you do have something meanigful to quote it on the subject) or a dick meassuring contest on who knows more about Wittgenstein, but is philosophy in need of major change? If yes, is philosophy conceding its goals to science the right answer?
Stick to that if you can and you're interested
The little I know about Wittgeinstein is that didn't wrote about scientifc thought, he wrote about logic, mathemathics and language. He suggested a few things: the wrong question is a major problem of philosophy. Another is that comunication is a major problem, so silence is sometimes more productive than talking. Both are insights you can use because your question is stupid.
Kat: "JCam, you may quote me now, but you are quite wise".
Kat: "JCam knows, we do not doubt in him".