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

Whither philosophy?

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 192 posts

Re: Whither philosophy?

#171

Post by dventimi »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #169
dventimi wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rubbish. It isn't remotely true that quantum mechanics is based on Aristotle, but even if it were true it wouldn't address the fact his ostensible book "Physics" is utterly useless for practicing modern physics.

I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. Some even argue you don't need anything better, as Popper commanded. Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers. Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid…

> I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science.

I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern science, but I'm willing to entertain the notion if you spell out exactly what you mean by "Aristotle's approach to physics."

> Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers.

This makes zero sense to me.

> Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such".

OK. What, if anything, does the study of the philosophical notion of solipsism contribute to resolving the black hole information paradox?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#172

Post by dventimi »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #168
dventimi wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think non aircraft engineers who fly in airplanes would tend to have their confidence increased, or decreased, if they discovered their airline had hired mechanics without checking their qualifications?

That's trust based on belief that qualification checking is supposed to work. Again layman here can't be bothered to verify anything, belief is enough.

I think you're forgetting how we got here. fastaguy88 wrote

> I am not particularly knowledgeable about philosophy as a modern discipline, but taking philosophy courses as an undergraduate taught me a lot, particularly about the limits of knowledge and scientific enquiry.

to which I replied

> The trouble is, we have to take your word for it that philosophy taught you a lot that the rest of us find useful, as there's little Independent verification

Personally, I don't trust anyone to certify that someone else has learned "a lot...about the limits of knowledge and scientific enquiry" the way I trust the FAA to certify (indirectly) that someone has learned aircraft mechanics, or the State Bar of California to certify that someone has learned California law. Do you?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#173

Post by GoblinSlayer »

dventimi wrote: post #162
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. There are many things in modern philosophy. You don't make claims based on ignorance, do you? How modern physics is different from such a modern philosophic idea as compatibilism? >This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a p…

Name one branch of physics that can't do without philosophy, in the following sense: at a typical American university with a graduate physics program that prepares its doctoral students for a successful professional career in that branch of physics, philosophy classes are a required part of the graduate curriculum.

That's survivor's bias. You can be ignorant about anything until it becomes a problem. Insurance against it IRL is polymorphism: some people won't be ignorant, but you suggest uniform ignorance.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#174

Post by GoblinSlayer »

dventimi wrote: post #163
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Previously laws of motion were proposed by Aristotle, Newton only did better quantitative analysis of observation and proposed more precise laws.

You forgot about Galileo, whose laws of motion superseded Aristotle's and did more to inform Newton. You also forgot about Copernicus and Kepler. Meanwhile, Newton formulated laws of motion that are still used today, a law of gravitation that is still used today, a theory of optics that is still used today, and a branch of mathematics that is still used today. Naturally, he had help in these triumphs, as all giants d…

I mean work done on it was steady evolution of knowledge started as philosophy. Newton himself called it philosophy.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#175

Post by [deleted] »

dventimi wrote: post #162
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I further claim that regardless of their historical provenance, modern physics is very distinct from modern philosophy. There are many things in modern philosophy. You don't make claims based on ignorance, do you? How modern physics is different from such a modern philosophic idea as compatibilism? >This claim is supported if we accept that a training in philosophy alone does not equip a person at all to work as a p…

Name one branch of physics that can't do without philosophy, in the following sense: at a typical American university with a graduate physics program that prepares its doctoral students for a successful professional career in that branch of physics, philosophy classes are a required part of the graduate curriculum.

[deleted]

Re: Whither philosophy?

#176

Post by [deleted] »

dventimi wrote: post #163
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Previously laws of motion were proposed by Aristotle, Newton only did better quantitative analysis of observation and proposed more precise laws.

You forgot about Galileo, whose laws of motion superseded Aristotle's and did more to inform Newton. You also forgot about Copernicus and Kepler. Meanwhile, Newton formulated laws of motion that are still used today, a law of gravitation that is still used today, a theory of optics that is still used today, and a branch of mathematics that is still used today. Naturally, he had help in these triumphs, as all giants d…

[deleted]

Re: Whither philosophy?

#177

Post by GoblinSlayer »

kbrkbr wrote: post #103
paul_funyun wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relativism is much more common among non-philosophers than philosophers.

Do you have a reference for this claim?

Probably refers to statistics that many philosophers in USA are moral realists. My pet theory is that they are afraid of cancellation, because layman realists have very negative reaction to criticism. Or it's inspired by Hollywood morality.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#178

Post by GoblinSlayer »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #46
b450 wrote: post #7

The argument is sometimes made that philosophy is the mother of all other academic traditions - once a philosophical idea reaches a sufficient level of promise or maturity, it spins off into its own discipline, as in the speciation of "natural philosophy" into specialized hard sciences. One might even point to psychology (or even more contentiously and partially, computer science) as a 20th century offshoots of philo…

Just as you must distinguish between philosophers and philosophy professors, you must distinguish between philosophy and academic ersatz. We all know what guides and drives academia. It's not always the love of wisdom (philo + sophis). Why should metaphysics be a dead end? Given the facts of observation, what must be true of reality so that such facts can obtain? Metaphysics is tacit within the facts, and a metaphysi…

Apparently you assume that reality is subordinate to reason. But there's no need for that assumption, we have empirical data: every scientific revolution (and some social) featured conflict between reality and contemporary reason, and every time reason changed and adapted to the new picture of reality. New facts just drop and reason adapts to them. Slowly and painfully, but adapts. This means reality is primary and reason is secondary - a reflection of reality, subject to the anthropic principle.

Re: Whither philosophy?

#179

Post by GoblinSlayer »

kbrkbr wrote: post #132
mistermann wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The evidence is that we have so many incompatible systems that all claim to be true. Imagine the mess science would be if it brought this level of accuracy and epistemology to the table when thinking.

I probably don't understand clearly enough. Physics, chemistry, biology, even psychology have textbooks. Pick one, it doesn't matter much. It will teach you roughly the same basic things. Philosophy on the other hand. Pick Searle or Derrida, pick Quine or the late Heidegger, and it is hard to conceive that they are even doing the same thing ("philosophy").

>Philosophy on the other hand.

Filter it by the tag "naturalism". Where's semantic web, again?

Re: Whither philosophy?

#180

Post by PH95VuimJjqBqy »

eikenberry wrote: post #37
ranprieur wrote: post #4

I have a BA in philosophy. Rather than learning the truth, I discovered that almost all philosophers were wrong about almost everything. But in tracing the history of wrongness, wrestling with all the fashions of thinking, you learn to think with precision. That skill continues to help me.

Wrong how? Philosophy is about tools for thought. Tools can have different use cases, pros/cons, and can be used wrong, but they are never really just wrong in a general sense. I might not agree with Kant's categorical imperative but it is still useful sometimes when thinking about ethics. Also "learning the truth" in philosophy is more learning what "the truth" means and how it is applied. Personally I'm a fan of Wi…

Not just that, but philosophy can help you make decisions with imperfect information. It's a useful tool even if some take it entirely too far.
Post reply on HN