system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why do so many philosophy texts seem to have an aversion to providing specific examples in addition to abstract definitions and statements and how does one deal with it?

As a learner, it drives me crazy and it makes it unnecessarily difficult to progress. Last week, I read a text on the philosophy of science that says falsification has become outdated as a demarcation criterion for what is or isn't science because it wrongfully excludes good science and includes bad science. Then the text simply moves on with explanations as if there was nothing more to say and doesn't name a single example of either. Why would you EVER make a statement like this and not add examples?

Not only would examples make it easier to understand what's going on, they'd also back up the claim being made and basically be arguments at the same time. I'm not even convinced that this is true, but if I'd been given two examples of each case, I'd buy it and probably remember it. As it is, I'm left with a claim I don't understand and doubt about its truth. What's the reasoning behind this and how does one deal with it?
gpt
>What's the reasoning behind this

Dan Dennett briefly talks about using examples in '*Intuition Pumps*':

>"Some philosophers think that using examples in their work is, if not quite cheating, at least uncalled for—rather the way novelists shun illustrations in their novels. The novelists take pride in doing it all with words, and the philosophers take pride in doing it all with carefully crafted abstract generalizations presented in rigorous order, as close to mathematical proofs as they can muster. Good for them, but they can’t expect me to recommend their work to any but a few remarkable students. It’s just more difficult than it has to be."