Dissing Philosophy = Dissing Knowledge

Not sure why you think the study of knowledge is a scam, or more specifically a pyramid scheme. All I can figure is that's because you can study it in college. But someone taking it in college is receiving benefits for their payment. It puts them in a room with other people who want to discuss it, or in other words, it's providing social networking. It's not necessarily about acquiring new knowledge though. It's more about understanding than anything. Understanding why you see things the way you do, and in what way other people see things and why they do.As for your homeopathy analogy, I'm not sure you understand what homeopathy is. From the little research I've done, it's about activating the bodies natural defenses to illness, rather than the cause of the illness. Basically, it's treating what's bad with small doses of highly diluted substances that are also bad. So by saying homeopathy is a load of bull, you're saying treating illness with illness is a load of bull, and perhaps it is, but I honestly do not know. By studying it, there's an off chance you'd come to a better understanding of disease, but more likely, you'll find out that either homeopathy works, or it doesn't. Possibly some of both. As for the study of knowledge, it can be viewed from a couple of different perspectives. From a philosophical perspective, or from a general view of knowledge. The latter would apply to, quite literally, any situation. One can examine (which is about the most simple yet accurate definition for study I can think of) the knowledge that they have, and figure out what knowledge they need to learn for whatever it is they want to do. Whether they want to begin their career, to start a new career, to add a room to their house, to change the oil in their car, to play a sport, to play an instrument, etc... It really doesn't matter, because knowledge is a part of everything, and no matter what you're studying, you're studying knowledge.The former, a philosophical perspective, is about knowledge itself. The definition of knowledge has never been ultimately agreed upon by philosophers, and so is an ongoing discussion. Many people, skeptics, would argue that there is no such thing as knowledge. That there's no real way to be sure that anything we "know" is actually true. Others argue that what we know is learned primarily through experience (empiricists), and others, primarily through reason (rationalists). Personally, I believe it's a combination of the latter two. It's also about how knowledge can be justified, and what can make it unjustified. But in the end, it's not so much about gaining more knowledge, but about gaining understanding of what knowledge is, and how it can be viewed. Such understanding isn't necessarily going to be useful in any way, other than adjusting ones own perspective of the world.For myself, it's a perfectly valid subject for one simple reason. I enjoy contemplating such things. I could get into more of it, but honestly, it's the sort of thing I prefer to discuss with people in person. And frankly, I doubt you really care what I have to say about it anyways. Besides, by your own definitions, I already justified it.