If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is • Hacker News Board

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#141

Post by sageikosa » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

kps wrote: post #120

ricksplat wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought our numbers were of Arabic origin?

Indian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hindu–Arabic_nu... Europe most likely adopted them via al-Khwarizmi's On the Calculation with Hindu Numerals , naming them ‘Arabic’ after the perceived origin of the author (actually he was Persian) rather than ‘Hindu’ after the title.

Zero sort of emerged from accounting serialization difficulties with positional base number systems. When it actually began to be treated as a number, all hell broke loose.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#142

Post by mcguire » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #9

It feels like the author has missed the point of philosophy entirely. If some Chinese philosophical paper is very good, it should be evaluated on its merits and folded in to an appropriate course for that topic. Philosophers believe at least, that they are doing work more along the lines of mathematics than underwater dance (that is, searching for truth). Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in num…

If that is the case, then why are Aristotle and Plato taught in modern philosophy classes? Why waste time with the ancients when you could go straight to the ideas of more modern, more correct thinkers like Santayana and Kirkegaard?

The thing about philosophy is that each philosopher is an individual; philosophy is additive (in the sense that any philosopher is building on, or replying to their predecessors) but not cumulative. There is no set of settled propositions that are universally regarded as correct.

The point of the argument of the article is that modern, Western university philosophy departments will not, or can not, include Chinese or Indian philosophers (both have extensive traditions) for example, and so cannot either evaluate those philosophies or, more importantly, relate them in any way to western philosophy.

Or, would you prefer that western mathematicians had never adopted the zero because it came from another culture and therefore could not be correct?

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#143

Post by ced » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

a_humean wrote: post #130

adrianratnapala wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then I stand corrected on what philosophers (at least analytic ones) believe. I even agree that mathematics is the closest thing to Analytic philosophy. But it is still very telling that in your third para, you list names instead of theorems. And you are right to do so, for the reasons I explained in my post above. When you talk of current research, then sure, you talk of modern philosophers. But that's still st…

Because I was leading to my point about citation networks and didn't want to bore you to death about theory names like causal theories of reference and semantic externalism in philosophy of language.

Did any of these modern theories come from non-western parts of the world?

"Causal theories of reference" looks interesting from an AI perspective. Do you know how it relates to the math discipline, causality (eg. Pearl)?

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#144

Post by altendo » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #89

EthanHeilman wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in number theory. There are strong cultural biases that show up in the history of mathematics. For instance the English mathematics community preferred Newton's notation over Leibniz due to a Anglocenteric bias in English mathematics community despite Newton's notation being clearly inferior. As wikipedia says: >"The priority dispute had an effect of separating…

First of all, it wasn't "clearly inferior" historically. Liebniz' arguments why it was valid were heavily based on infinitesimals and monadology, which were not known at the time to be valid. (In fact, many of Liebniz' arguments weren't valid, although the conclusions turned out to be.) Secondly, if biases exist, one need not argue for diversity in order to achieve it. Liebniz notation didn't win because someone argu…

> Liebniz notation didn't win because someone argued that anglos were biased and diversity was needed, it won because mathematical arguments demonstrated it was better.

> Unfortunately the authors of this piece don't actually make that latter argument.

Is this to imply there is a more-correct philosophy? I have no formal training in philosophy but I feel that to claim one philosophy is objectively better than another is a bit much.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#145

Post by kevinpet » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #142

whatshisface wrote: post #9

It feels like the author has missed the point of philosophy entirely. If some Chinese philosophical paper is very good, it should be evaluated on its merits and folded in to an appropriate course for that topic. Philosophers believe at least, that they are doing work more along the lines of mathematics than underwater dance (that is, searching for truth). Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in num…

If that is the case, then why are Aristotle and Plato taught in modern philosophy classes? Why waste time with the ancients when you could go straight to the ideas of more modern, more correct thinkers like Santayana and Kirkegaard? The thing about philosophy is that each philosopher is an individual; philosophy is additive (in the sense that any philosopher is building on, or replying to their predecessors) but not…

For the same reason that David Ricardo comes up in modern economics classes and Panini comes up in modern linguistics classes -- because those are considered significant in the history of the now dominant paradigms.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#146

Post by clavalle » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:52 PM UTC

EthanHeilman wrote: post #119

clavalle wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How do we choose which ones to teach? Which one leads to a richer vein of further research? Which one makes better predictions? Which one finds more applications? Diversity and scope can be important only so far as they improve the systems in terms of scientific validity. Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory o…

>Your arguments are exactly the ones used by creationists for the purpose of making that internally consistent system seem as valid as the theory of evolution. Science is different than Mathematics in that science must be both internally and externally consistent.

Fair enough, but mathematics is robustly internally consistent.

If a mathematical idea leads to the same results as another mathematical idea with no contradiction it is considered true and is celebrated. These ideas also need to avoid running afoul of fundamental axioms.

I don't know much about philosophy but it seems like ideas lead directly to irreconcilable contradictions should be either thrown out or isolated into their own system (if the resulting system is rich enough) and those that fit into a system and lead to new paths of insight should be included in that system. Contradictions between systems should be explored but it seems that expanding an already rich system should be preferred to forcing contradictions into a coherent system or weakening working ideas to make room for ideas that don't lead anywhere new.

Maybe that is what the author is advocating -- separate internally consistent systems and a relinquishing of the umbrella term Philosophy to make room for separate systems. But the title -- 'If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is' seems to suggest a preference for Philosophy to diversify, to throw everything under the same big tent, contradictions and all, which I really don't think is helpful.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#147

Post by hosh » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:55 PM UTC

nutheracc wrote: post #132

whack wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author addresses your exact point in the article. "Others might argue against renaming on the grounds that it is unfair to single out philosophy: We do not have departments of Euro-American Mathematics or Physics. This is nothing but shabby sophistry. Non-European philosophical traditions offer distinctive solutions to problems discussed within European and American philosophy, raise or frame problems not address…

Sounds like we're confusing philosophy as investigation with philosophy as a way of living.

I'm curious, how so? I've always considered the investigation with philosophy worthless without it as a way of living. Is distinguishing between the two useful?

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#148

Post by darkmouth » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:58 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #9

It feels like the author has missed the point of philosophy entirely. If some Chinese philosophical paper is very good, it should be evaluated on its merits and folded in to an appropriate course for that topic. Philosophers believe at least, that they are doing work more along the lines of mathematics than underwater dance (that is, searching for truth). Nobody would ever dream of arguing against eurocentrism in num…

In science and technology, it doesn't matter where a scientific study was done. We have central repositories and conferences where applications from all over the world are welcomes, and the best achievements are included.

The difference in Philosophy is the default is assumed to be European philosophy. A Chinese paper has to be exceptional to be included in an existing course, where most things are directly derived from European philosophy. It is not a fair playing field at all unlike STEM. The course designer is not fetching a list of all studies in the world done of a topic x, and then a panel is not debating on which of these studies has a most merit. The course creators are taking discussion on a topic X from whichever study is done in Europe. If this is how we start carrying out STEM research, we'd have a hard time to say the least.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#149

Post by methehack » Thu, May 12, 2016, 3:59 PM UTC

shadowfox wrote: post #37

imgabe wrote: post #20

Why do people feel the need to dictate to others what they should do? The authors of this piece are professors of philosophy. If they feel that teaching non-Western philosophy is crucially important and offers substantial advantages that cannot be obtained by studying only Western philosophy, then why don't they just simply teach non-Western philosophy . All the advantages they presume to exist by doing so will surel…

> Why do people feel the need to dictate to others what they should do? I rather see this as advocacy. If you strongly feel the need for change, you have to do that in addition to simply doing what they themselves can do. People do it all the time. Take a look at open source advocacy for example.

“The Fates lead those who come willingly, and drag those who do not.”

That's the quote the article ends with. Seems like a threat and, frankly, out of place -- and, stronger, than 'advocacy'.

Re: If Philosophy Won’t Diversify, Let’s Call It What It Really Is

#150

Post by hsod » Thu, May 12, 2016, 4:03 PM UTC

borkxs wrote: post #96

shadowfox wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do people feel the need to dictate to others what they should do? I rather see this as advocacy. If you strongly feel the need for change, you have to do that in addition to simply doing what they themselves can do. People do it all the time. Take a look at open source advocacy for example.

Then I can understand why people seem to be finding what you call advocacy a bit grating. Because if it isn't a dictate, what exactly is the desired outcome? Imagine this piece does its job and convinces a lot of people. "Indeed! We need more multicultural philosophy departments!" Now it's a policy debate. Which departments? Which coursework? Do we need to hire and fire to make this change? The question becomes: HOW…

I'd be very interested in reading a philosophical examination of the ethics of advocacy/activism. It's not even something I've ever really seen discussed.