71–80 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, proof in this domain isn't precise the way a mathematical proof is precise.
Of course it's precise (in fact, it's isomorphic to a mathematical proof).
Just look at all the retracted papers that have been published. Erratum are surprisingly widespread for such a formal system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Could you please elaborate on this?
I'm being kind of harsh, so let me restate: my experience with Philosophy of Science has been very sub-par. I took a class on the Philosophy of Time and a lot of it dealt with relativity. Now, I don't think you need to understand Einstein to understand the gist of relativity, but if you're studying it for 10-weeks in a formal environment then, yeah, you probably need to have a grasp not only on Minkowski spaces, but…
There are definitely philosophers, both in philosophy of physics and in philosophy of mathematics, who are far better thought of as just studying philosophy simpliciter. These philosophers tend to use relatively trivial examples from science and mathematics in a pretty flat-footed way in order to make philosophical arguments. For example, arguing in favor of Platonism on the basis of purported facts about mathematical objects rarely takes into account mathematical reasoning beyond what is accessible to an average 7 year old.
But there are also many philosophers who study the exact sciences (i.e., math and physics) that actually take the details extremely seriously. Take a look at graduates and faculty at the Pitt HPS department or the UC Irvine's LPS department (for just two examples). There are quite a few people who even get doctoral degrees in both philosophy and physics. And, at my not-at-all-HPS (but technical-leaning) department, one of my colleagues who is just finishing with philosophy already has a doctoral degree in math.
Now, obviously just bc one has a doctoral degree in the exact sciences does not thereby make them cautious in assessing what philosophical content there is to be found in studying the exact sciences. The point is just that there are plenty of philosophers who, in contrast with the experience you had (at UCLA?) in philosophy of physics, know the details well enough to have contributed original research in the exact sciences.
Two very legit philosophers of physics to check out are David Malament and Howard Stein.
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,…
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.
> there is nothing that verifies mistakes so you can succeeded without being absolutely correct Yes there is. The primary method of argument is proof.
Only in logic, I think. Is there proof in ethics? (which is not to say that I think it is an invalid field of discourse.) One can demand internal consistency in a philosophical argument, but not necessarily proof.
In the interminable squabbles over consciousness and the mind, the physicalists and the dualists each seem to think they have ruled out their opponents' position, but they can't both be right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, for the sake of argument I'd like to entertain that hypothesis. How do you propose to prove it? Or at least show some persuasive evidence.
To define "smart", you'd have to ask a philosopher. QED. Jokes aside, my personal opinion is that we have a lot of hubris on the average, and a lot of us probably consider ourselves smarter than we are. Or at least could do with an attitude that generates an openness to learning, which being humble does. For this reason alone, it might be interesting to consider that there might be a smarter lot out there. And a bunc…
Philosophy is not like software engineering. There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution. A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishing your thoughts about what they had to say. You don't start from scratch. You build on what is already there. Addition by addition the field progresses and removes bad ideas or clarifie…
> There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution.
Just like software engineering unless you count Hello Worlds as contributions. But even then one can do simple things like that in philosophy.
> A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishing your thoughts about what they had to say.
Sounds like reading white papers and RFCs to me.
> You don't start from scratch. You build on what is already there.
The same. Just check how much transpilers and leftpad like libraries a JS Hello World app needs!
And so on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, proof in this domain isn't precise the way a mathematical proof is precise.
Of course it's precise (in fact, it's isomorphic to a mathematical proof).
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's incompleteness theorems or the quantum observer effect to justify ludicrous claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's precise (in fact, it's isomorphic to a mathematical proof).
Even mathematical proof is a relatively low standard in practice. Just look at all the retracted papers that have been published. Erratum are surprisingly widespread for such a formal system.
Philosophy is not like software engineering. There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution. A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishing your thoughts about what they had to say. You don't start from scratch. You build on what is already there. Addition by addition the field progresses and removes bad ideas or clarifie…
Haha, the description sounds exactly like software engineering. Let me deconstruct: > There's a lot more reading that needs to be done before you can make a contribution. Just like software engineering unless you count Hello Worlds as contributions. But even then one can do simple things like that in philosophy. > A lot of it progresses by just reading the works of the established masters, getting ideas, and publishi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is, I think, the wrong question. Or rather, the wrong approach to take.[1] Philosophy is not that kind of human endeavor. There is no "state of the art"; instead, Plato is as state-of-the-art as he ever was[2][3] and every publishing philosopher has novel ideas (or at least hopes they do, although they might also like to learn that some ancient sage has expressed support for their notions). My personal way of vi…
Isn't it so that whenever something within philosophy becomes state of the art, it stops being philosophy?