Philosophy and How I Talked Myself Out Of It.

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:11 am

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

I think philosophy will one day have to content itself with the idea that it has about as much purpose as departments who study literary criticism. The literary world is not affected so much by literary criticism, but rather, literary critics have a job only because other literary critics like to read what they have to say. Thus, their affect is entirely internal to their own discipline.

I think philosophy is the same. I remember a few years ago talking online with a philosophy major and when asked what he wanted to do after his studies, he said, "I want to write reviews that no one will read about books that no one has read to appear in journals that no one will read."

...

But again, that means that philosophers of science are not philosophizing so much as post-hoc commentating.

This reminds me of another quote:
Art criticism is for artists as ornithology is for the birds.

And as philosophy is for scientists...

Sure, philosophy from scientists is largely them asking themselves "What the hell did I just do?" but it's still philosophy.

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:55 am

Kmisho wrote:

Sure, philosophy from scientists is largely them asking themselves "What the hell did I just do?" but it's still philosophy.

And I am more comfortable, I think, when scientists do philosophy of science.

Philosophos wrote:

Not necessarily, Kevin. If anyone took Nancy Cartright's book "How The Laws Of Physics Lie", for instance, it would be a guiding force for how physicists do research.

I am not familiar with it. I will check it out.

Why would it be a guiding force to physicists on how they should conduct their research?

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:19 am

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

But philosophy ruminates and thinks that their job is done and that ruminating alone can solve problems.

It seems that ruminating without application would be rather pointless, but how often does this really happen?

The philosopher him/herself may not personally apply their mental examination of truth, but if it’s made public, almost certainly someone will take that mental work and apply it, especially if it shows any real application. However, I’m sure there’s much philosophy that may be pointless from an application standpoint.

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:37 pm

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

Why would it be a guiding force to physicists on how they should conduct their research?

Because it would suggest that unification of the sciences should not be an overarching goal of research.

Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:49 pm

Philosophos,

I just looked up the book on amazon, and I have two observations.

First, ALL of the blurbs for the book on the dust jacket are by philosophers, not scientists. That in itself is a bit telling.

Secondly, all of the positive reviews seem to be from those who are philosophically inclined, while the negative review seems to be from someone who either is a scientist or is more scientifically-inclined.

I bring these up to illustrate that this is a chasm often seen in books on the philosophy of science. I have read many, and seen the amazon reviews of many, and both of these points seem to be the rule. The blurbs always seem to come from philosophy professors (not professors of biolog, genetics, theoretical physics, etc.) And it always seem that the positive reviews are never by those who identify themselves as scientists or students of science, but seem like philosophers of philosophy students (one can generally tell by the jargon they use).

Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:12 pm

I can see how the pursuit of philosophy can bring intrinsic satisfaction. Many times this has been my experience. But to me the more significant value of philosophy lies in its practicality and this often seems elusive. It seems that philosophy is somewhat embedded in many activities - science and education to list two. But the overall connection between professional philosophy and solving practical, everyday problems is tenuous at best, and that is a shortcoming of philosophy (at least it seemed so back in the mid 90's when I was in grad school).

Dewey argued that the experimental method could be applied to social, ethical, and personal problems - not with the tight controls and protocols of course- but as a general orientation to life as we encounter it. For him, philosophy had to be practical to be of any use. This still seems like a worthy criterion.

Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:27 pm

Kevin, I find myself very much in agreement with you here.

I also was once very much 'into' philosophy, and still hold a soft spot for people like Bertrand Russell. my first 'idol' in the field. I feel I got so much insight into the field from reading his 'History of Western Philosophy'. I have heard recent commentary pointing out flaws in his approach and coverage, but I still feel it was largely accurate in conveying the story.

I definitely still have a lot of time for certain people who are considered 'philosophers', based on their saying many things which resonate with me and spark new insights. Probably my more contemporary favourite is Daniel Dennett.

But I have had too many experience recently where I have listened to exciting accounts of new insights from 'real' science into new areas like studies of the mind and brain using new technologies combined with increasingly sophisticated personal interview and analysis methods, then tuned into or started to read a discussion between contemporary philosophers covering roughly the same area, and realized how damn irrelevant and way-past-the-use-by-date their discussion was.

I think this is just the continuation of the long term trend - as we acquire tools and techniques to tackle a particular area of study in a more rigorous, practical way, it moves out of philosophy into science.

Philosophy may still help in organising our thoughts about things.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 550

Philosophy is good, but it does need to be applied. Who's seen the Monty Python sketch where the Greek and German philosophers play soccer against each other? All they do is walk around the field philosophizing until Archemedies shouts 'EUREKA!' runs and kicks the ball into the German goal.

Newbie First Class Joined: Mar 29, 2008 Posts: 48

Kevinthepragmaticist wrote:

So, here I am. Part of me would love to be a professional philosopher, spending my days teaching undergraduates about the pragmatists, the existentialists, the empiricists, etc.

But then there is the part of me that is really glad that I am not that, becaue I would not be able to avoid the feeling that I am not really doing anything of lasting value.

Thoughts?

Disagree. A good philopsophy prof doesn't teach teach a student what to think but rather he/she teaches a student how to think. If you could impart upon your students the ability to critically examine each situation and come to a rational, thought out conclusion then perhaps you'd be saving the world from yet another religious wack job (reason is the enemy of religion). A few good philosophy courses may provide the best education most students will receive during their time in college.

Just Arrived Joined: Apr 10, 2008 Posts: 3

So, doing what you enjoy is not something you want to do?
You may reflect on life in general and its meaning to you.

If you're into politics and debate and so forth, surely you have come to one of the general conclusions that a solution to many modern day "problems" as we like to define them, can in part be solved through a more educated (reasoned) population. In part, that includes critical thinking, which presumably philosophy sometimes touches on, I hope. So I don't really see how being a philosophy teacher is irrelevant in that context, you can make a strong argument (to anyone) that it's of primary importance to the type of society you want to exist in. What's more important, that or organizing Beonce concerts? I'm sure the latter pays better, and is in more demand, but is that your criteria for a good life?

In the end, it's simply your choice. That is scary for many people who want some universal objective reason why they should act (some religious people, or some objectivists, for instance), but brave humans sometimes realize that they are responsible for their choices, and accept fully that responsibility, and proceed accordingly into the future. Paradoxically once the burden is accepted, it's often the case the person feels more at ease, relaxed, and confident (is this not similar to zen?). Preachy there at the end, but you know what I mean.

-Mach

Newbie First Class Joined: Oct 01, 2004 Posts: 26

Quickly reviewing this thread, I find it curious that no one seeks to ask the question, what can we say about the philosophical ideas dominant in the atheist/humanist movement as it exists today in the USA?\

Since we are talking about science, note that atheists and humanists have been upholding the "scientific method" as a an ideal for the better part of a century. Just what does this entail? Is it in fact possible to apply the "scientific method" to every area of investigation--depending on how narrowly or broadly you define the concept--and if not, are there nonetheless rational methods of investigation that can be applied or is it all a crap shoot?

Broader than the "scientific method" is the scientific attitude or scientific temper? How does that relate to actual science?

How do ideals of science actually relate to the institutions and practices of science in the real world?

How do we explain social and cultural phenomena? By means of scientific method applied as in the natural sciences, or by other methods? How to evaluate the social sciences?

What are the criteria of rationality and irrationality? Is all irrationality religious? When and why are rationalists irrational?

I pose these questions not because they are novelties to me, but because the scope of critical thinking in atheist/humanist circles seems rather circumscribed to me. Even this discussion of the value of philosophy seems rather narrow. Perhaps philosophy at least can be of value with respect to critical thinking and the critical evaluation of knowledge claims, most importantly knowledge claims about knowledge claims.

Posted: Sun May 04, 2008 1:05 pm

Ralphellectual wrote:

Quickly reviewing this thread, I find it curious that no one seeks to ask the question, what can we say about the philosophical ideas dominant in the atheist/humanist movement as it exists today in the USA?\

Since we are talking about science, note that atheists and humanists have been upholding the "scientific method" as a an ideal for the better part of a century. Just what does this entail? Is it in fact possible to apply the "scientific method" to every area of investigation--depending on how narrowly or broadly you define the concept--and if not, are there nonetheless rational methods of investigation that can be applied or is it all a crap shoot?

Broader than the "scientific method" is the scientific attitude or scientific temper? How does that relate to actual science?

How do ideals of science actually relate to the institutions and practices of science in the real world?

How do we explain social and cultural phenomena? By means of scientific method applied as in the natural sciences, or by other methods? How to evaluate the social sciences?

What are the criteria of rationality and irrationality? Is all irrationality religious? When and why are rationalists irrational?

I pose these questions not because they are novelties to me, but because the scope of critical thinking in atheist/humanist circles seems rather circumscribed to me. Even this discussion of the value of philosophy seems rather narrow. Perhaps philosophy at least can be of value with respect to critical thinking and the critical evaluation of knowledge claims, most importantly knowledge claims about knowledge claims.

Well, knowledge claims about knowledge claims are not really necessary to deal with. Claims of knowledge implicity carry the idea that if you know, you know you know, and you know you know you know. Defense of claims of knowledge claims at any level defends them all.

Scietific temper, as you put it, is of vastly more importance than the particulars of the scientific method, since actual scientists (to whom the particulars would be expected to rigorously apply) constitute only a tiny fraction of humanity.

"Is it in fact possible to apply the "scientific method" to every area of investigation...?" is an interesting question. I think this is looking at it backwards. To truly investigate something is to apply the scientific method (I am using a broader notion here, rather than, say, strict adherence at all times to double blind testing). In this way, anything that can be investigated is subject to science. And if it cannot be investigated, it is outside of science (assuming there is something that cannot be investigated. I find it hard to imagine that there is a method that could possibly determine that something lies beyond investigation.)

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:09 am

In my opinion, I see Philosophy as a useful subject only when it is coupled with action.

This is because I see philosophy as the art of applying logic onto a discussion and because logic itself functions largely as an artifact of resolution, it must be coupled with the ability to move forward to do anything.

The mind is like a car, logic is the brake and mirror, while emotion is the gas. If all one uses is logic then one will have a very clear picture of where to go and will never be in danger of losing control, but they will never go anywhere because they never use the "gas".

People who are all about their feelings and not about logic will go everywhere, but have no control.

Only the right combination of logic and motion in ones thought can yield efficiency and use


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore