Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking • Hacker News Board

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#161

Post by TimTheTinker » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:01 PM UTC

olooney wrote: post #151

TimTheTinker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you saying a potentially true idea could commit known fallacies?

If so, what you’re really saying is that analytical philosophy is in question... in that case, I don’t think it’s worth arguing with you.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#162

Post by TimTheTinker » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

BlueTemplar wrote: post #152

TimTheTinker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Yes I am. Analytical philosophy is really just a logical approach to analyzing arguments, with a laundry list of known fallacies.

It’s not so much an epistemology as a way of easily diffusing fallacious arguments.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#163

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:05 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #5

fjfaase wrote: post #2

I wonder if this an attempt to validate philosophy as a science in itself now that other sciences have invalidated many philosophical positions as being valid. My primary feeling about most philosophy is that it is a historical science instead of a systematic science, where the ideas of a certain philosopher are placed in the context of history. It also seems to me that the philosophers are more important than their…

I'm not sure how much philosophy and science can ever be connected. There is surely little biological basis for systems of ethics or epistemology. Abandoning that, we're left to wonder if they can apply to social systems in the aggregate. There we find a wide variety of social systems in partial or complete disagreement on what constitutes ethics. In some systems murder is a sin; in others it is tolerated or necessar…

I can think of several examples where systems of ethics come from biological and/or sociological evolutionary constraints ?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#164

Post by anthk » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

yters wrote: post #105

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,…

Most of the modern atheists are clueless when it comes to the theism discussion.

Theism is bullshit, as much as people reading cards, voodoo or the horoscopes.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#165

Post by jonathanstrange » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:06 PM UTC

DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #121

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've done well by staying clear of anyone airing their thoughts about post-modernity in the past 15 years. (perhaps with the exception of some very few individuals like Zizek). This is because of the constant efforts from conservative pseudo-philosopher's like Stephen Hicks[0] (who on his YT channel hasn't shied away from inviting neo-Nazis to talk about the subject) all the way to JP[1] who do not understand the top…

I agree with you and don't understand why you're being downvoted.

"Post-modernity" has become almost entirely a straw-man (for bizarre political reasons), as the debate between Zizek and JP illustrates nicely. I mean, JP tried hard, but why would a psychologist agree to participate in an online debate about a very complicated topic in philosophy about which he has read almost nothing in the first place?

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#166

Post by BlueTemplar » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

denton-scratch wrote: post #138

Nasrudith wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ancient Greek philosophers contain some real howlers like Aristotlean impetus and belief that women must have fewer teeth than men because of a smaller skull and an assumption that human teeth are identical in size and spacing. They refused to check their ideas to reality under a self indulgent concept of "purity of thought". I blame aristocratic influnce and the disdain for the practical.

That would be the "pre-socratics". I was forced to study them for my degree, and I could barely contain my laughter. Some of those guys had some pretty bonkers beliefs, and it does seem to be true that they often disdained actually cheecking their claims empirically. A few of them were on the nail, though, at least sometimes; Democritus, for example.

Funny also how pythagoricians found some mathematical truths and went all cult-like because of it...

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#167

Post by harpiaharpyja » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

alfonsodev wrote: post #159

natex wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was my understanding of what they wrote as well, if I may also chime in.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#168

Post by fenderbluesjr » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #45

rvense wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't read the linked article yet, but to me, Foucault really is one of the most interesting intellectuals of the 20th century (or longer) - if only because of how differently people perceive him. There's that old debate between him and Chomsky, and it's incredible how different people will score that debate. Some see obscurantist posturing versus Chomsky's towering, rigourous intellect, where others see Chomsky o…

One of my favorite takes on this debate, from a software developer: http://byfat.xxx/chomsky (SFW even though it's on an .xxx domain) (It is "this debate" in a broader sense, not this specific debate, which I also happen to love. I both agree with you that it is amazing how everyone sees what they want to see in that debate, and also am in the "lol Chomsky got owned so hard he didn't even know what was going on" camp…

The link provided was just an elaborate way of saying 'postmodernism is good, Chomsky doesn't get it'. It doesn't tell you what the novel 'ways of thinking' are, just asserts that they are there and require 'investing serious time' to grasp. There's no defense here and I don't see how you can appreciate this take unless you are already firmly decided beforehand and just like seeing people you disagree with pilloried

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#169

Post by whimsicalism » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

olooney wrote: post #151

TimTheTinker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter

No doubt hypotheses can be discovered in some other manner.

I do not think the epistemic method used in the continental school of philosophy provides any sort of way of verifying those hypotheses from premises.

Re: Pseudophilosophy encourages confused, self-indulgent thinking

#170

Post by jonathanstrange » Tue, Feb 09, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

harpiaharpyja wrote: post #167

alfonsodev wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That was my understanding of what they wrote as well, if I may also chime in.

That was my understanding, too, and I wrote it. :)

I'm fine with calling it "the mother of all sciences", though, just to annoy some natural scientists.