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

Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

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

#81

Post by dean »

fatbird wrote: post #69
dean wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that philosophy has the ability to ask good questions, unfortunately it does not seem to be able to answer those questions in any meaningful way. Science also has the ability to ask good questions, but it knows how to answer them in a meaningful way (at least good science does). By meaningful, I mean provably true. Philosophy is very happy to take untested opinion as true. Which is provably dangerous. I…

I got the sense that he thinks of philosophers more in the fashion of scientists doing basic research in universities and R&D departments. People don't know their names, and they rarely have much direct impact, but their work is foundational to a lot of practical things that come later. Philosophy is very happy to take untested opinion as true. This is demonstrably false. Philosophy, almost by definition, is a proces…

Enlighten me. What is the process of "rationally testing opinion"? (More opinion is not the right answer.)

Philosophy can make large, beautiful, perfectly logical structures of thought. But they necessarily must begin with an axiom, some foundation on which to build. If the axiom is wrong, the whole structure falls. No matter how beautiful it is. I submit that the problem with Philosophy is that it is only too happy to build on untested axioms.

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

#82

Post by sold »

fatbird wrote: post #58
ataggart wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>[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?

No philosopher worth her salt would try to answer this question as formed because of the large number of buried assumptions in it that presuppose the form of the correct answer, and that answers not meeting that form are, by definition, incorrect. Your question is a sophisticated version of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Let's look at this question:

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

Is it a loaded question? I think it isn't, and it has a lot of valid answers. Here are some recent ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_ma.... Why the corresponding question for philosophers should be loaded? Are they exempt from settling things?

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

#83

Post by davesims »

dean wrote: post #70
davesims wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a fantastic response! I'm so heartened to see this as the top comment. The article is completely absurd, of course, but unfortunately represents a bizarre sort of anti-intellectualism that is running rampant through academic communities which are coming closer and closer to declaring outright that philosophy as a discipline , and not just particular philosophers, is irrelevant and has been superseded by a specif…

" [Philosophy] has been superseded by a specific form of dogmatic, reductionist science. " Not sure of the 'specific form' of science you are refering to, but I would hardly call science dogmatic. True, it dogmatically follows the 'Scientific Method', but that is a process to get at the truth. It does not dogmatically accept any ideas. It questions and tests, and if a cherished idea is proven wrong -- out it goes. Cl…

Science, as the broad quest for knowledge, scientia, is not dogmatic, or at least ideally it is not. But modern science certainly has dogmas, and gladly admits them. Methodological Naturalism is the biggie. It is useful as a kind of provisional phenomenological reduction that brackets some questions and some kinds of answers (formal, teleological, aesthetic), in favor of others (mechanistic, reductionistic).

In theory as long as the reduction remains provisional, it has tremendous explanatory power. In practice, it far too often becomes a de facto metaphysic, unwarranted and unproven within its own assumptions. There are plenty of critics of this tendency in the last hundred years, but mostly they have been ignored: Husserl, Bergson are two of the most prominent. A more obscure student of both Husserl and Heidegger, Hans Jonas, has been extremely helpful to me personally, particularly his Phenomenon of Life, as a rigorous critique of reductionism that retains a high view of science on the one hand and doesn't founder and wander off into religious/atheistic debates on the other.

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

#84

Post by fatbird »

dean wrote: post #81
fatbird wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the sense that he thinks of philosophers more in the fashion of scientists doing basic research in universities and R&D departments. People don't know their names, and they rarely have much direct impact, but their work is foundational to a lot of practical things that come later. Philosophy is very happy to take untested opinion as true. This is demonstrably false. Philosophy, almost by definition, is a proces…

Enlighten me. What is the process of "rationally testing opinion"? (More opinion is not the right answer.) Philosophy can make large, beautiful, perfectly logical structures of thought. But they necessarily must begin with an axiom, some foundation on which to build. If the axiom is wrong, the whole structure falls. No matter how beautiful it is. I submit that the problem with Philosophy is that it is only too happy…

There's nothing wrong with building on axioms if you understand that they are stipulated rather than foundational, and much philosophy has been done tearing down exactly the beautiful structures you identify as problematic. That just is rationally testing "opinion", which I put in quotes because it's a loaded word you introduced in place of axiom to undermine the position of philosophy. I remind you that Goedl's incompleteness theorem, which gives analytical rigor to your point, came out of early 20th century logic, and was in direct response to the philosophical program of the Vienna Circle, which again is philosophers. How, do you suppose, you could establish Goedl's incompleteness theorem with the scientific method?

Rational testing is analysis with logic and deconstruction and, to the applicable degree, empiricism.

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

#85

Post by lutusp »

beala wrote: post #39
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…

> 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 t…

> As far as I know, there is no consensus in the philosophical community that relativism is right.

Yes, but only because the terms "consensus" and "philosophical community" are fictional terms -- neither exist within philosophy.

DO you really think philosophers sit down and come to an agreement about anything? That would be supremely unwise -- the very existence of philosophy requires unending controversy, therefore to come to an agreement -- a consensus -- is to commit professional suicide.

In science, you can design a vaccine, or by experiment prove that reality agrees with your most recent theory, and thereby survive the consequences of two or more scientists coming to an agreement. Philosophers don't have this option (because reality is an obstacle, not a source of validation), therefore to even suggest that philosophers might reach a "consensus" is to fail to grasp the essence of philosophy: verbal onanism.

> 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. [emphasis added]

You just took both opposing positions in a single sentence, which validates your standing as a philosopher. In fact, there are no objectively wrong things, only those things particular societies and individuals judge to be wrong -- and disagreement between individuals and societies is absolutely assured.

Your child is starving, and a dolphin is available as a food source. Do I need to go on, or can you perform this trivial mental exercise on your own?

> Nature also doesn't "care" about math or science, because nature isn't a thinking thing that can care.

You're missing a critical point here. It is not nature's purpose to care about anything, instead it is a scientist's purpose to investigate how nature does what it does while not caring one way or another. In other words, nature's indifference toward science strengthens science's hand (it contributes to the objectivity of science's results).

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

#86

Post by davesims »

unalone wrote: post #79
davesims wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was led to believe that Descartes argued his new method should be added to existing ones rather than replace them entirely – am I wrong in thinking this way?" Actually I think you are, but it is of course complicated. My read of the Discourse (certainly not original with me!) traces a sequence of subtle but nevertheless explicit rejections of each category of Descartes' own education: mathematics, physics, metaphy…

That's quite an interesting read. Now I want to read Discourse and see if that's how I see Descartes' arguments myself. Bleh... so damn much to read.

Awesome. With your interests and obvious clarity of expression, I'd suggest you pop the Discourse near the top of the queue! What's needful at this point in history, imo, is as many inquisitive, acute minds as possible re-engaging these debates in their original subtlety.

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

#87

Post by Anchor »

unalone wrote: post #48
msutherl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?...

I'm making my way through The Process of Creating Life . It's one of only two books that I've read in recent years that I can't read too much of at once – I get three pages in and have to stop, because of how excited I am about his arguments and its implications. I was debating, at one point, scanning its pages and making a digital copy for my friends' sakes, but the work is so tremendous that I feel bad distributing…

I'm making my way through The Process of Creating Life. It's one of only two books that I've read in recent years that I can't read too much of at once – I get three pages in and have to stop, because of how excited I am about his arguments and its implications.

I bought the whole The Nature of Order series five years ago and have been ever since trying to find a person who has read it. A have returned to the books periodically, and again and again feel the same excitement that prevents reading too much at one sitting. I have not yet encountered another book that does the same.

In fact, I feel the same way about writing this reply. It is as the implications of the book are too - how should I describe it - something to be spelled out; somehow I do not feel I can do justice to the text by discussing it. I do not even know where to begin.

Perhaps it is best summarized by saying just read it. Yes, this is a lousy book review, and the price tag is not of the average variety, but this is a series of books for (of) life.

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

#88

Post by kitbrennan »

ataggart wrote: post #40
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?

Looking for philosophical truths that are well-defined and correct is a bad starting point. If something can be described of as correct or incorrect, then there would not be much of a philosophical discussion since you would be able to find the answer.

Philosophy is looking to ask the deeper questions: the questions that do not have a yes/no answer, and cannot be well defined (or to put it more accurately: truths that can be well defined, but in so many different ways that it is difficult to choose one definition).

However, just because these questions do not have yes/no answers and are not well-defined, does not make them trivial!

A great example of where philosophy affects your life daily is political philosophy. Ask yourself if you are liberal, conservative or something else? None of these schools of thought can be described as 'right' or 'wrong'. They are all different ways of looking at the question of how a society should function.

Yet discussing this question is incredibly important, and the discussions that political philosophers have trickle down into your mainstream politics (a fantastic recent example that we are all aware of is the Tea Party Movement, which itself is saying that we should use the philosophy of hardline conservatism). Political parties did not just sprout out of nowhere: they involved people having incredibly thoughtful discussions.

You may be saying that although some philosophy affects your life (eg. politics), other stuff just seems to be pointless. For example, you might argue that discussing the meaning of 'right or wrong' is pointless and that we should just get on with life. However, the way that we treat someone that has done a 'wrong' will depend on our political system (for example, you may follow a school of thought that says we should place rehabilitation before punishment, or vice versa), and therefore to ask how our political system should treat these people that has done a 'wrong', we should ask what it means to say that something is 'wrong' in the first place (eg. if you do not intend an outcome, have you done a wrong?), or what it means to place 'blame' on someone (eg. does blame mean that we do not approve of their action, or that they should not approve of their own action?). These are not just abstract thoughts, but practical considerations that filter through to the very political system that you live in.

If you would like some other examples of philosophy affecting your day to day life, then I would recommend looking up these topics: * Medical ethics: when does life start (conception? a heart beat? birth?)? Is it right to take the life of a featus after life has started? What about when rape is involved? What about when the mother is at risk of death if a pregnancy is to go ahead? * What is a person? Should we follow someones directives after a personality change (what change would a person need to make before they invalidate their own do not resuscitate order)? If a person has changed, are their contracts or will still valid? * What does it mean to say we are free? Is freedom something we should strive to achieve? Is freedom a human right? Is privacy something we should strive to achieve? Is privacy a human right? What about where these rights conflict? * What is law? When do we say something has lawful authority? Does law need to be moral? Does law need to be fair? Is it ok to follow the law, even if we think it will do something that is morally wrong?

I'm happy to give more examples, or to go into more detail about why these questions are important.

NOTE: I studied law at university and decided to take a module on moral philosophy and it was one of the best decisions I ever made. Philosophy is about having discussions on difficult questions and gives you the skills to do so; this has affected everything I have done since. Once you start asking philosophical questions, they will start popping up in everything you do. I regularly find myself asking questions about nature and philosophy when coding just because I can see how it can trickle down to have a tangible impact on what I'm creating. If there is one thing I would urge you to do this christmas holiday, it would be to read a philosophy book (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a great place to start), it might just change your life.

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

#89

Post by lutusp »

mburney wrote: post #73
lutusp wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many philosophers have questioned the scientific definition of "correctness". This concisely and aptly summarizes the reason for philosophy's low standing among intellectual disciplines. Philosophers are manifestly unqualified to debate the scientific definition of anything, much less "correctness". Beyond this, a suitable definition is too short to be of interest to a philosopher, someone for whom the number of wo…

> A scientific idea is "correct" if it can be successfully compared to reality. But this is similar to saying what is real is what corresponds to reality. Do you see the circularity here? The philosophers who engage in questioning the "real" are not doing it for the reasons scientists engage in discovering "correct" phenomena. The longing for a deeper meaning and clarity beyond scientific inquiry is a spiritual longi…

> But this is similar to saying what is real is what corresponds to reality. Do you see the circularity here?

The circularity is in your wording, not in the thing itself. A scientist has an idea, one expressed clearly enough that two or more similarly trained individuals can understand the claim. The idea is tested against reality, in a way (again) that similarly equipped observers can agree that the result means what it seems to mean.

The outcome is either that the original idea is supported by, or falsified by, the comparison to reality. And the distinction between the idea, and its test against reality, is nowhere confused -- not among scientists, anyway.

> The philosophers who engage in questioning the "real" are not doing it for the reasons scientists engage in discovering "correct" phenomena.

That's for sure -- philosophers much prefer arguing about the meaning of reality, to dealing with reality on its own terms. Many modern philosophers, following this trend, slide into deconstructive postmodernism without ever realizing that they've crossed the threshold of absurdity (by posing the argument that all experience is subjective and there is no objective reality as scientists claim, but without realizing that their argument justly applies first to the words they've just uttered).

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

#90

Post by davesims »

btilly wrote: post #78
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…

This is a wonderful response. It illustrates exactly how philosophers want to think of themselves. However when I compare with my actual interactions with philosophers, I am forced to believe that reality falls far short of the ideal. Whenever I have seen philosophers speculate on a topic that I knew something about, for instance math and science, I found that I could tell the difference between philosophers who lear…

This is a huge reason for philosophy's ongoing journey into irrelevance. Both scientists and philosophers have become over-specialized and tend to presume competency in one gives competency in another.

They are not only different subjects, but require very different modes of thought and background knowledge that often cause the experts in each sphere to talk completely past one another. Each demands that that all arguments submit to the peculiar rigor within their own discipline, causing ground-level miscommunication and exasperation.

Post reply on HN