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

Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

psyche.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 242 posts

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#151

Post by olooney »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #128
olooney wrote: post #86

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is called the "demarcation problem" and is surprisingly difficult and subtle. It would seem to me that the analogous "philosophical demarcation problem" is even more difficult and probably completely meaningless because of the open and fluid nature of philosophy itself. The author believes that "pseudophilosophy," whatever that is, encourages confused and self-indulgent think…

Philosophy as a field may be “open and fluid” to an extent, but analytical philosophy isn’t at all. As the author writes, there are basic, well-established methods for sniffing out fallacious ideas. All ideas—even those originating from the philosophy department itself—ought to be subjected to basic analytical philosophy before being let out the door. I think that’s what this piece boils down to.

Yes, if we were absolutely convinced of the correctness of analytical philosophy and the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter. If we are not quite so certain perhaps we should not prematurely put the kibosh on ideas just because they run afoul of one particular point of view, but rather let them all into the arena to fight it out?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#152

Post by BlueTemplar »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #128
olooney wrote: post #86

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is called the "demarcation problem" and is surprisingly difficult and subtle. It would seem to me that the analogous "philosophical demarcation problem" is even more difficult and probably completely meaningless because of the open and fluid nature of philosophy itself. The author believes that "pseudophilosophy," whatever that is, encourages confused and self-indulgent think…

Philosophy as a field may be “open and fluid” to an extent, but analytical philosophy isn’t at all. As the author writes, there are basic, well-established methods for sniffing out fallacious ideas. All ideas—even those originating from the philosophy department itself—ought to be subjected to basic analytical philosophy before being let out the door. I think that’s what this piece boils down to.

Should they ?

I guess you're claiming that analytic philosophy is to philosophy in general more like mathematics to physics, rather than 'just another paradigm' ?

But are you certain it is so ?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#153

Post by gmtx725 »

protonfish wrote: post #47
zyxzevn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complexity and language: It is always funny how long boring sentences are found in philosophy. I think the problem is that our language is lacking in clarity for describing the subtle nuances of reasoning and logic. And sadly it is a bit confusing. Especially if one (like me), does not know all the people listed in the paragraphs. Personally I tend to shorten the sentences and focus on the presentation of the informa…

I don't think the problem is inherent flaws and limitations of our language. In the spirit of "I would have written a shorter letter, but I didn't have the time" I have seen many examples of, with proper effort and skill, highly complex ideas described in clear and simple language. When you read incomprehensible gobbledygook, it is because the author is being lazy, at best. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to appe…

Would you apply the same criteria to literature? Film? Art? Why isn't someone like, say, Jackson Pollock as 'clear and understandable' as a renaissance painter?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#155

Post by knowhy »

082349872349872 wrote: post #25
Veen wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would be little problem if his methods were confined to examining questions such as the truth of phrenology, the ideological presumptions that made it an appealing set of beliefs, and power relations that motivated them. Unfortunately, his followers (and Foucault himself) cast a far wider net than that, to the point at which power-knowledge becomes the predominant or even the only acceptable analytical framewor…

So what is power-knowledge? Any suggested introductions? After a quick skim of https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/#HistPris I think I can relate the idea of power-knowledge to something with which I am much more familiar: closed loop control theory. Under that model, it makes sense that one's ability to control would be dependent not only upon how good one's effectors may be ("power"?) but also upon how good…

I'm not familiar enough with closed loop control theory to make a statement if the analogy is appropriate. But a quick skim is definitive not enough to get an understanding of Foucault. However these two quotes from the plato article should make a good starting point:

> The key idea of the archaeological method is that systems of thought and knowledge (epistemes or discursive formations, in Foucault’s terminology) are governed by rules, beyond those of grammar and logic, that operate beneath the consciousness of individual subjects and define a system of conceptual possibilities that determines the boundaries of thought in a given domain and period.

> On Foucault’s account, the relation of power and knowledge is far closer than in the familiar Baconian engineering model, for which “knowledge is power” means that knowledge is an instrument of power, although the two exist quite independently. Foucault’s point is rather that, at least for the study of human beings, the goals of power and the goals of knowledge cannot be separated: in knowing we control and in controlling we know.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#157

Post by brudgers »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #52

As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…

To be clear, what we refer to as "science" is the discipline formerly known as "natural philosophy" in the European canon. And there was some connotation that as such, it was pseudo-philosophy for dealing with mere appearances rather than true essences and for eschewing morality and eternal truths for empirical reasoning about ordinary things.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#158

Post by cowpig »

mistermann wrote: post #104
mrkeen wrote: post #42

> Harris’s failure to grasp the content of many of the philosophical claims and arguments that he criticises > Lawrence Krauss engages with philosophical arguments for theism without understanding them properly. Most saliently, he ends up criticising a caricature version of the so-called cosmological argument about the existence of God. Oof. Perhaps back up those drive-by-shootings with some clarification. > Usually,…

> The irony. Similarly: > There are many kinds of pseudosciences: astrology, homeopathy, flat-Earthism, anti-vaxx. These ‘fields’ traffic in bizarre claims with scientific pretensions. On a surface level, these claims seem to be scientific and usually appear to comment on the same kind of things that science does. However, upon closer inspection, pseudoscience is revealed to be bullshit: it is indifferent to the trut…

Both of the passages you quoted read as coherent and even convincing.

Sure, terms like "epistemic" or "unconscientiousness" may be a bit unfamiliar, but they have specific meanings that are clear in the passage, and are used to make a salient argument.

The use of jargon does not equate to obfuscation! For example, these two statements are very different:

"Making the world a better place through canonical data models to communicate between endpoints." (Silicon Valley season 1 episode 6)

"And then there are other aspects of complexity that come into programming with any of these more commonly used statically typed languages, which have to do with the complexity in the language space." (Rich Hickey talk)

If you aren't familiar with the jargon, they're both unintelligible, but if you are, one sounds silly and the other does not.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#159

Post by alfonsodev »

natex wrote: post #101
jonathanstrange wrote: post #52

As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…

I appreciate this comment but I have some questions/comments: > I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science. On the contrary…

Not OP but here, > I don't think the article was making a claim about philosophy being a science.

How I understood it, is not as saying the article says the opposite but as an statement to introduce the idea that people disagree on what 80% is worth reading and that all fine because is not science.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#160

Post by BlueTemplar »

yakubin wrote: post #49
andybak wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this discussion I am regarding science as a strict subset of philosophy. One where more constraints are added. So of course philosophy can talk about anything science can because science is a branch of philosophy. You can't do science without implicitly doing philosophy. Science relies on epistimology to justify it's foundations. Debates about whether topic A or topic B are really science is a philosophical debate…

By that logic, chemistry is a branch of physics. Scientists argue about philosophy of science, because it's about their field. It doesn't make science a philosophy of science [EDIT: in previous version I wrote it the other way around]. > It's hard to do cosmology or particle physics without tripping over philosophy. "Shut up and calculate" can only take you so far. It's also hard to do cosmology or particle physics w…

If you don't like the 'branch of' terminology, then what about : chemistry needs foundations based on physics and physics need a foundation based on mathematics/philosophy ?

P.S.: We used to do particle physics and cosmology long before 'computer' became a name for a machine rather than a job.

Post reply on HN