Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant • Hacker News Board

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#31

Post by lutusp » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 3:58 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #29

lutusp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notably absent from this guy's syllabus is anything concerning ethics, morality, values, or right and wrong. That's because all morality is relative, one of the few things philosophy got right. The universe is morally neutral, which means that, to the degree that we fully grasp reality, to the same degree we discover that morality is a human invention, malleable across time and place. Not to discount notions of mor…

Right – which is why philosophy is more than just "the study of nature", and why in fact it's important that philosophy continues to examine questions like "if morality is relative, then is there a practical or even a deeper argument for morality's purpose that doesn't revolve around divine judgment?" Nothing's more frustrating than people who take a very shallow summary of a very fascinating philosophical inquiry an…

Yes, but my reply was to a post which argued that morality was being given too little weight. On the contrary -- too much weight, if anything, to the degree that some misguided souls are able to picture philosophy as a secular replacement for religion.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#32

Post by zackmorris » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:01 PM UTC

Philosophy and I parted ways in college when it became apparent that my own opinion meant less than someone else's. I look at philosophy as it's taught now like an introductory art class, where you learn how to draw lines and circles and shade things. Once you have a certain repertoire, focussing purely on technique becomes a waste of time, sort of the antithesis of art. Modern philosophy is touching things up in photoshop and calling it art.

I wish that philosophy was more about existentialism. Exploring what all of this really means and how it fits into your life. I've already diminished my argument by focussing on one narrow segment of philosophy. Then again, if philosophy is so fragile that any talk of improving it is met with hostility, maybe it's not all it's cracked up to be. And "modern" sciences like mathematics and probability don't have much to do with philosophy in my book.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#33

Post by msutherl » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #18

The argument is absurd. Claiming that universities are "poisoning minds" by teaching Aristotle and Descartes in 101 Intro to Philosophy courses is just silly. Those same universities teach modern philosophy courses that deal with the intersection of science and philosophy – judging by my one or two philosophy friends, philosophers are much more interested in the practical discoveries of psychology, math, and science…

Lovely argument that I would like to second.

I think you're the first person outside of my former research group that I've seen reference the Nature of Order. That made me very happy. It's too bad the books are so expensive – they deserve to be circulated more widely: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0972652914/ref=as_li_ss_tl?...

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#34

Post by unalone » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:02 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #31

unalone wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right – which is why philosophy is more than just "the study of nature", and why in fact it's important that philosophy continues to examine questions like "if morality is relative, then is there a practical or even a deeper argument for morality's purpose that doesn't revolve around divine judgment?" Nothing's more frustrating than people who take a very shallow summary of a very fascinating philosophical inquiry an…

Yes, but my reply was to a post which argued that morality was being given too little weight. On the contrary -- too much weight, if anything, to the degree that some misguided souls are able to picture philosophy as a secular replacement for religion.

Ah! Okay, that makes a lot more sense; I think I misinterpreted the point you were trying to make. Sorry for the mess-up.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#35

Post by marmaduke » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:07 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #18

The argument is absurd. Claiming that universities are "poisoning minds" by teaching Aristotle and Descartes in 101 Intro to Philosophy courses is just silly. Those same universities teach modern philosophy courses that deal with the intersection of science and philosophy – judging by my one or two philosophy friends, philosophers are much more interested in the practical discoveries of psychology, math, and science…

Your response has a higher content density than the original!

Working in scientific groups & having studied philosophy, I find that I'm constantly reminding my coworkers to ask if their clever question is in fact the right one, to question (and answer) what they'll accept as an explanation before searching for one. This sort of thinking doesn't come automatically from purely technical or scientific studies.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#36

Post by rmc » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:09 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #25

ajb wrote: post #9

Notably absent from this guy's syllabus is anything concerning ethics, morality, values, or right and wrong. In all the fields he cites - even, to a large extent, psychology - values are exogenous.

> Notably absent from this guy's syllabus is anything concerning ethics, morality, values, or right and wrong. That's because all morality is relative, one of the few things philosophy got right. The universe is morally neutral, which means that, to the degree that we fully grasp reality, to the same degree we discover that morality is a human invention, malleable across time and place. Not to discount notions of mor…

You're right. But if you're learning science then you don't learn ethics. However we're not learning science here, we're learning philosophy.

Secondly, just because it's "invented by humans" doesn't mean it's not real. After all, language is invented by humans, but you can still do science on language.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#37

Post by lutusp » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:10 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #23

jopt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Is this how philosophy is or how it ought to be?

It's how philosophy began and it's how philosophy is in its purest state , which is much different from saying it's the only way for philosophy to be. Generally, I think philosophy is like mathematics in that while its purest application is very obscure and very hard to understand without a whole lot of effort, that pure application results in practical breaththroughs on almost every level of "practical" research. I…

> Generally, I think philosophy is like mathematics ...

There are no two subjects farther apart than philosophy and mathematics. They represent extrema on a spectrum that lies between absolute intellectual rigor and absolute intellectual onanism:

http://xkcd.com/435/

A mathematical idea is interesting to the degree that it addresses other mathematical ideas, perhaps proves a theorem of interest to other mathematicians.

A philosophical idea is interesting to the degree that it avoids addressing anything that might resolve an open question or (God forbid) cause the cessation of the endless chatter that identifies the true philosopher.

> ... that pure application results in practical breaththroughs on almost every level of "practical" research.

You're still describing philosophy, yes? There's no research in philosophy, practical or otherwise -- research is by definition an effort to correlate an idea with reality, and reality-testing is not philosophy's domain.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#38

Post by fatbird » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:12 PM UTC

ajb wrote: post #9

Notably absent from this guy's syllabus is anything concerning ethics, morality, values, or right and wrong. In all the fields he cites - even, to a large extent, psychology - values are exogenous.

Also anything to do with the continental side of philosophy, which leans towards the political and away from the scientific.

In fact, this guy's syllabus is basically an intro to philosophy of science, and that's it. Philosophy does much, much more than that.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#39

Post by beala » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #25

ajb wrote: post #9

Notably absent from this guy's syllabus is anything concerning ethics, morality, values, or right and wrong. In all the fields he cites - even, to a large extent, psychology - values are exogenous.

> Notably absent from this guy's syllabus is anything concerning ethics, morality, values, or right and wrong. That's because all morality is relative, one of the few things philosophy got right. The universe is morally neutral, which means that, to the degree that we fully grasp reality, to the same degree we discover that morality is a human invention, malleable across time and place. Not to discount notions of mor…

> That's because all morality is relative, one of the few things philosophy got right.

As far as I know, there is no consensus in the philosophical community that relativism is right. In fact, my impression is that there's a stigma against relativism, as it's hard to come up with a satisfactory relativistic theory. For example, if relativism is true, it might be the case that we can't judge other societies or other times, but certainly slavery and female genital mutilation are wrong, and objectively so. I'm also not sure what to make of "nature not caring." Nature also doesn't "care" about math or science, because nature isn't a thinking thing that can care.

Re: Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

#40

Post by ataggart » Sat, Dec 08, 2012, 4:21 PM UTC

unalone wrote: post #18

The argument is absurd. Claiming that universities are "poisoning minds" by teaching Aristotle and Descartes in 101 Intro to Philosophy courses is just silly. Those same universities teach modern philosophy courses that deal with the intersection of science and philosophy – judging by my one or two philosophy friends, philosophers are much more interested in the practical discoveries of psychology, math, and science…

>[Philosophy's real purpose] is to constantly search for deeper underlying truth.

What "truth" has philosophy itself produced from that search which is well-defined, non-trivial, and correct?