Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

mic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–219 of 219 posts

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#211

Post by Houshalter »

tome wrote: post #183
ktRolster wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is selection bias there, problems that do get settled stop being dragged on.

Yes. A lot of this discussion hasn't grasped your point. Philosophy did settle a lot of questions. They became natural history, physics, chemistry, even mathematics. The ones that are taught in Philosophy courses are the ones that haven't been settled.

Mathematics existed for a long time before philosophy, although the two do seem closely related. Science does have origins in philosophy, but I don't think it was philosophical arguments that settled scientific issues, but the invention of the scientific method, which abandoned the need for them.

Anyway the main point of that quote is that without developing a consensus or the ability to experimentally test theories, debates have a tendency to drag on for centuries without going anywhere. Of course philosophy can't settle issues experimentally.

The main criticism I've heard of philosophy, is that they don't try to form consensus and encourage the dragging on. Philosophy students spend their time reading through the history of philosophy and studying old arguments and issues. Whereas in math or science, there isn't really an emphasis on history or even that much about ongoing debates.

Mathematicians don't have a way to experimentally test ideas either. Certain ideas, like the validity of infinite sets, or of Cantor's diagonal theorem, are arguably philosophical in nature as much as mathematical. And were extremely controversial at one time, with many notable mathematicians taking the side against them. But mathematicians did come to consensus on them, eventually.

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#213

Post by andkon »

Aqueous wrote: post #138
pjc50 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their website ( http://soixante-neuf.homosexual.horse/veritas/ ) does seem at least somewhat satirical How far through the URL did you read before realising that?

Honestly? Still not sure myself. The "leave a comment for my secretary" form is either some Grade-A douchebaggery or trolling perfected. But if this whole thing is intentional satire then it's too many layers deep to make its point.

Right?? I think trolling and satire are different, now that I'm looking at this bud — satire needs to be obvious lest it further the goals of the thing it's making fun of. Trolling actually needs you to buy into what it's saying, which seems to be the goal here.

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#214

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

pmoriarty wrote: post #210
GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name three unreconcilable contradictions in ZFC?

"The most comprehensive formal systems yet set up are, on the one hand, the system of Principia Mathematica and, on the other, the axiom system for set theory of Zermelo-Fraenkel (later extended by J. v. Neumann). These two systems are so extensive that all methods of proof used in mathematics today have been formalized in them, i.e. reduced to a few axioms and rules of inference. It may therefore be surmised that th…

I am aware of Godel, thanks, and of course that choice / Zorn's / well ordering (not to mention CH) are independent of ZF (and in particular that's why I mentioned ZFC). I'm also willing to accept the existence of an inaccessible cardinal, which bears on ZFC's consistency.

Ultimately my belief is this: there was a very real crisis in foundations at the end of the 19th century and over the next several decades this was fixed as best as it could be. The edges of the foundation are not perfect, the edges of the foundation cannot be perfect, but the edges of the foundation have been pushed back so far that for nearly every working mathematician they're good enough. (and if the algebraic geometers need Grothendieck universes, I'm ok with that)

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#215

Post by ktRolster »

Houshalter wrote: post #211
tome wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. A lot of this discussion hasn't grasped your point. Philosophy did settle a lot of questions. They became natural history, physics, chemistry, even mathematics. The ones that are taught in Philosophy courses are the ones that haven't been settled.

Mathematics existed for a long time before philosophy, although the two do seem closely related. Science does have origins in philosophy, but I don't think it was philosophical arguments that settled scientific issues, but the invention of the scientific method, which abandoned the need for them. Anyway the main point of that quote is that without developing a consensus or the ability to experimentally test theories,…

Which philosopher discovered the scientific method?

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#216

Post by gerby »

I have a great respect for philosophers, and I consider myself a philosopher too. Look at Alex Karp at Palantir (Doctorate level in Philosophy) and Stewart Butterfield at Slack.. both were trained philosophers, and ended up building very successful companies that are relatively outside of what they studied in school.

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#217

Post by sebringj »

tome wrote: post #193
sebringj wrote: post #36

After taking some in college, philosophy to me was more like a stepping stone in critical thinking to embracing the light of science. I've noticed on so many youtube forums for example, people postulate things without external verification in nature, "if this then that" where tautologies and vin diagrams and the like are held as absolute truths. It never was sold on that as there are more dimensions to reality than o…

> observing nature always trumps anything philosophy will ever invent on its own You do realise that modern science (natural philosophy) rose out of philosophy?

Yes, absolutely. As an extreme example, we also started from lower versions of apes as well but we keep progressing and refining. To quote Marvin Minsky, "We stand on the shoulders of giants, but we should also know when to get off." when he was referring to philosophy in particular.

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#218

Post by argonaut »

pmoriarty wrote: post #171
argonaut wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating "philosophizing" with "the modern academic study of philosophy." To most people, the second has nothing to do with the first. Your grandparents, uncles, and aunts have better answers to those questions. Maybe a two semester survey of the history of philosophy and reading the great works to hear some different perspectives. Neither of these involve a full course of study in philosophy.

This kind of dismissive, condescending attitude towards philosophical concerns which are clearly important to a lot if not most people is one of the main things that really ticks me off about some contemporary analytic philosophers, and especially their predecessors, the logical positivists. They would have the subjects they have anointed be the only True Philosophy, and anything else as mere "philosophizing". But th…

You're not making a coherent argument. It seems we agree?

Re: Why I Majored in Philosophy Despite Everyone Telling Me Not To (2013)

#219

Post by argonaut »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #191
argonaut wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating "philosophizing" with "the modern academic study of philosophy." To most people, the second has nothing to do with the first. Your grandparents, uncles, and aunts have better answers to those questions. Maybe a two semester survey of the history of philosophy and reading the great works to hear some different perspectives. Neither of these involve a full course of study in philosophy.

> You are conflating "philosophizing" with "the modern academic study of philosophy." For me that's like having sex compared to studying porn, or like walking around the block instead of watching sports. You can belittle it while I enjoy its fruits.

Who said I was belittling it? Your words not mine.

If anything I was belittling the academic study of philosophy.

Post reply on HN