Live data from Hacker News

What, exactly, do philosophers do?

the-tls.co.uk

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#101
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy is easy . It takes a different skill set and is a more developed field, however their is nothing that verifies mistakes so you can succeeded without being absolutely correct. The problem is when you confuse what you need to do to succeed with the search for truth.

If your claim is that your philosophical position can not be verified, then sure, nothing verifies it. Typically, however, philosophers actually claim their ideas are in tight correlation with reality. That offers plenty of opportunities for verification.

Such as...

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is a good chance that whatever you want to say has already been said by at least a few other people and been refuted counter-argued or otherwise discussed. If you are not aware of all that accompanying discussion, you are likely to think you have come up with something profound when you actually haven't. This is why r/im14andthisisdeep/ is a thing. A lot of teens think they have an insight despite the f…

All true but I feel as currently taught it is hamstrung as a "historical study of great men / literary study of original sources" instead of teaching the key ideas distilled into the the most efficient and practical form. High school physicists are not ploughing through Principia Mathematica, instead they learn the laws of motion and move on. Physicists pretty much leave behind the original sources until you are at t…

The philosophy I studied in college was not a 'historical study of great men' or any sort of literary study. It was study of the ideas, with the various works (usually short works, not big things but excerpts and such) used as clear explanations of them. And then study of what responses were made to those, what their merits were, what the flaws or strengths of the idea are, etc.

And philosophers DO consult the original sources. Those would be basic logic and rhetoric. Then they take those and they first build epistemology. Then they use that epistemology to build a framework of metaphysics. Eventually they build the most abstract, highest level piece - ethics. At each step there are varying options, and it is rare that you can point to any of the options as 'clearly true'.

We already know mathematics and similar cannot address everything. A 3-body system of perfect sphere interacting solely under universal gravitation is already in itself so sensitive to initial conditions that the error on any prediction you make grows faster than anything computable. So how is humanity to deal with things that happen on the scale of trillions of trillions of entities interacting in non-linear ways constantly? That's the world we actually live in, and the tools to address it won't come from math. And probably not physics (although maybe).

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read universally accepted classical philosophers most of their work are not precise at all, yet they are widely recognized. Actually, a lot of philosophy is "arguable". I don't think you can argue a lot with a mathematical proof. And I'm sorry, but when Lacan compare the penis to square root of -1, it's hard to come back to scientists and sell the rigor of philosophy. Same when philosophers use and abuse Gödel…

> Same when philosophers use and abuse Gödel's incompleteness theorems... Except the most popular abuser of Gödel's conclusions by far is a physicist and mathematician.

Nobody said scientists couldn't be wrong. I'm just against the idea that philosophy is as rigorous as maths in most of the forms it has taken until today.

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#104
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making a mistake has nothing to do with using an accurate system. You can have the most precise ruler in the world and yet use it incorrectly.

My point is that perfection is not required. So, calling something a proof does not mean it must be accurate.

Of course it is. When you see a mistake in a reasoning, it's not called a proof anymore. It's kinda the definition.

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#106
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are OK with the works of Karl Popper? Because as an outside observer, that's what I consider the phenotype of the philosophy of science.

Yeah, Popper is obviously a genius. I know he's regarded as a philosopher of science, but I think that's a bit of a misnomer. I think he's probably somewhere between logic and metaphysics. Carnap, too, is also more of a logician. But, alas, they're both labeled philosophers of science .

Hmm, I think you are mistaken here. Popper was as much a philosopher of science as anyone. Here's the intro to his Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper):

He is generally regarded as one of the 20th century's greatest philosophers of science.[11][12][13] Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method, in favour of empirical falsification: A theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinized by decisive experiments.

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#107
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As these folks have said, Kripke and Fodor are not bad entry points for analytic philosophy if recency is your only concern--they might be hard to digest or understand properly however, as they are working with very specific problems and drawing on knowledge with a particular history to it. David Chalmers is good for philosophy of mind on the more analytic side. Quine is also important. So is Searle. Scott Soames' tw…

Sartre? And how could any such list leave out von Hartmann? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Robert_Eduard_von_Hartman... http://www.iep.utm.edu/hartmann/ https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/selections/eduard-von-h...

Hartmann is certainly not a giant on anyone's list. Even if you were to compare him to some of the "lesser" giants, such as Berkeley, Schopenhauer, or even Thomas Reid, it's not even close.

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#108
post #26

Always warms my heart to see philosophy on top of HN. Philosophy is hard -- much harder than one would think. And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. On the other hand, it's very political, and a lot of it is mental masturbation. Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Philosophy of Mind, apart from a few great minds (Chalmers,…

> Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field.

Not sure what you are talking about. Godel and Turing demonstrating the limits of some systems are actually giving philosophy of science results. I don't see any bogus in their work.

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#109
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is that the top philosophers are smarter than Carmack. That seems suspect.

Haha, there's no comparison. The top philosophers are smarter than our Supreme Court Justices. And those are certainly smarter than Carmack. And I'm a huge Carmack fanboy.

Hah. I've met a philosophy majors, and most of them just seemed to want to play word games, rather than try to help build understanding or work together in a conversation towards truth.

I don't care of the smartness of any group, but I'd take the methods of rationality over whatever is taught in philosophy any day of the week. You can see sillysaurus3 trying to actually get to the bottom of your statement, and he's being a much better logician than you are.

As a biochemist I'm also allergic to the field of ethics, because it tends to be worried hand-wringing by people who have no technical understanding of the field.

Re: What, exactly, do philosophers do?

#110
post #40
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison Comparing a software engineer to someone contributing to the advancement of an entire field is not really a fair comparison. This is like comparing someone who has a job in "compliance and ethics" to someone making advancement in quantum computing.

I'm comparing people of equal experience in either field. A philosophy undergraduate is, in my experience, much more intelligent than their engineering counterpart. This probably has to do with the fact that in philosophy, writing clear arguments is of primary import. Whereas in engineering, most examinations are problem sets -- where the worst that can happen is a clever gotcha' (see whiteboard interviews).

A [someone who studied the same like I did] is, in my experience, much more intelligent than their [majority of this forum] counterpart.

As someone already stated here, modern philosophy more or less is nothing but a dick measuring contest.

QED

Post reply on HN