6 ms·

As a philosopher who also works in philosophy and frequently reviews for top journals, I have skimmed over this article and unfortunately have to say that these

As a philosopher who also works in philosophy and frequently reviews for top journals, I have skimmed over this article and unfortunately have to say that these kind of loose essays who mingle together various unrelated issues in some grand tour de force without any stringent argumentation don't do our discipline much of a favor. In my personal experience, roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash (give or take), but the remaining 10% are extremely interesting and worth reading both by philosophers and people outside the field. You have to pick carefully. Moreover, if you look at the history of philosophy that has always been the case, although the percentage of trash might have increased a little bit lately due to the nature of peer reviewing and the overall state of the discipline as a profession (too many people, not enough room for originality, too much focus on number of publications and self-promotion). Hawking's point was different, though, and he's essentially right. The vast majority of all professional philosophers simply don't have the mathematical skills and time to keep at pace with any developments in physics after special relativity and early quantum physics. But don't blame the philosophers alone for it, this is the result of our educational system and the extreme rise of mathematical methods in sciences in general. Who can afford, in our modern society, to master the latest developments of String Theory and what's going on in philosophy with its many areas and subareas, all of this at the same time? On a side note, if you're interested in formal philosophy, exact philosophy, philosophy as a science or however you might call it, I'd recommend studying mathematics instead and philosophy only as a secondary topic or not at all. It's easy to get into a philosophy department as a mathematician, there are many examples, but the other way round? Not going to happen.

hakakadera 10y ago
> "Who can afford, in our modern society, to master the latest developments of String Theory and what's going on in philosophy with its many areas and subareas, all of this at the same time?" When science achieves quantifiable improvements to average human lifespan, our take on life too will change.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  > When science achieves quantifiable improvements to average human lifespan You mean like it's done over the last couple hundred years?
  - hakakadera 10y ago
    > You mean like it's done over the last couple hundred years? Yes, imagine the world before penicillin and after it. They are not the same.
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  Almost every area of science is expanding faster than anybody can study it. With increased lifespan, expect increased specialization.
  - hakakadera 10y ago
    > "With increased lifespan, expect increased specialization." This is an interesting point. "Advancement" doesn't mean the fields are only getting narrower. Advancement means having to deal with increasing number of multi-disciplinary fields. So, the expectancy of convergence is positive. With marginal increase of lifespan one may only see specialization. But if one dares to imagine a 1.5x to 2x lifespan, the meaning of "time" will change. All economical decisions are also subconsciously factoring lifespan, with a mental model of "division by time" to see if something is worth that fraction of their life. The imbalance created by say a 1.5x or 2x rise in lifespan will surely make way for more scientific enlightenment of masses. Edit: corrected word "Specialization" into "Advancement"
jmcmichael 10y ago
I'm curious why you believe all philosophers need to keep up with mathematics and science, as you appear to imply. Certainly philosophers working in branches that deal directly with science, math, and the nature of reality must maintain an accurate perspective on the latest research and methods to properly do their job. Philosophers of science must actually study the focus of their research. Those working in metaphysics must ensure their theories do not conflict with those of physicists (or ensure they conflict in interesting and valid ways). But what of ethics, aesthetics, politics and other more humanistic branches of philosophy requires those doing working within them to keep pace with the latest developments in physics and maths?
- fish55 10y ago
  Those are nothing if not grounded in ontology.
  - jmcmichael 10y ago
    Do you believe that the ontology of science, namely the fundamental entities of the standard model and general relativity, serve as the only valid foundation for all other ontologies encompassing the human experience?
    - fish55 10y ago
      I haven't thought of ontologies in the plural; I think it resists multiplicity by definition? I expect to be able to chase secondary facts back into their basis in reality.
      - jmcmichael 10y ago
        Anytime one attempts to abstract entities and features from reality in order to work with them - whether you're practicing philosophy, physics, medicine, writing laws, coding animal behavior, or describing a database schema, one must base one's work on an ontology whether it be implicit or explicit. Many ontologies exist - arguably at least as many ontologies exist as conscious entities capable of conceptualization. Your second statement assumes the affirmative to the question I asked; that the ontology of science does indeed serve as the only valid foundation for all other ontologies, unless I'm missing something. Philosophers call this the theory of 'causal closure'[1] It has many implications that you may or may not agree with in the areas of consciousness, free will, ethics, etc. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure
Pigo 10y ago
I'm way out of my element here, but I can't pass up the opportunity to ask a professional how something like Roland Omnes book Quantum Philosophy fits into this back-and-forth between physics and philosophy. I found it in a Barnes and Nobles many years ago, and found it steeped in both fields. Is this not relevant, not really ground-breaking in any significant way, or just a oddity in the field philosophy? https://books.google.com/books?id=nVZ7AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nVZ7AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PR...
- baldfat 10y ago
  It's not an oddity. It really makes me sad when the acceptable way is to just bash a whole field of study. Ethics is what drove GPL and RMS' whole life and his talks are about. Linux is based on Philosophy/Ethics. When people dismiss RMS genius (I don't agree with him on most things but recognize him as an amazing mind) they don't hear him through the perspective of Ethics or know much of the discipline.
  - JohnStrange 10y ago
    1. It's definitely an oddity. 2. I haven't bashed a whole field, I have merely stated my experience. Curiously, most colleagues I've talked about it share this sentiment. 3. I'm a big fan of RMS and always compare him to Socrates. :-)
    - baldfat 10y ago
      > Curiously, most colleagues I've talked about it share this sentiment. 99% of Moms can answer that one. (If everyone jumped off a building would you?) Just cause everyone else is doing doesn't make it right :) > I'm a big fan of RMS and always compare him to Socrates. :-) Stoic till the ends of his days, and with a smile.
      - JohnStrange 10y ago
        Sure, but just because everyone else is doing also doesn't make it false. Touche!
threatofrain 10y ago
Would you mind, by any chance, pointing out an example of the 10% you find really interesting?
- baldfat 10y ago
  As a degree holder in Philosophy, having naming my son Soren, I have to say I find that to be just a very negative statement about a great field of study. The vast amount of Philosophy out there has something well worth diving in and the execution could not be a person's style but the deep dive of thought is quite amazing. Also if you don't know the significance of my son's name (Soren) I usually just nod my head nicely and walk away from philosophy "experts."
  - askAwayMan 10y ago
    For those wondering, searching Wikipedia brought would lead me to guess Soeren is in reference to Kierkegaard.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - boomboomsubban 10y ago
    It's a realistic view of a great study. Copenhagen was just one university teaching philosophy around 1840, are you able to name a second philosopher that came out of there? How about 1/10?
    - baldfat 10y ago
      > are you able to name a second philosopher that came out of there? Since Kierkegaard was totally forgotten and wasn't rediscovered made popular in Germany by Boltmann till the 20th Century and no English translation till the 1940's I really don't see the significance of your comment. > How about 1/10? Not sure what you are saying there >It's a realistic view of a great study 90% of CS Journal Articles are garbage? 90% of Math in Journals are garbage? 90% of Medicine Writing Journals are Garbage? It isn't acceptable to disparage a Philosophy and call it a waste of time. It's right up there with it being okay to say "I'm not good in math" in professional settings. Both remarks are totally acceptable to say but they really shouldn't
baldfat 10y ago
> I have skimmed over this article and unfortunately have to say ... Yes I discounted everything you have said because you skimmed philosophy. At that one remark I discount anything you would say since Philosophy is 100% not skimmable and that was a dense article from one of the up and coming giants in contemporary philosophy. > roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash One of the great fights is to keep philosophy relevant. In college, teaching philosophy has a large barrier which is students negative view of philosophy. It was always my motive to help students to discover philosophy as an awesome discipline that will expand their world and thought process. You just slammed 90% of your contemporaries. From Article: "Paul Feyerabend: “The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth…” The current upper academic culture has PhDs making broad sweeping comments in fields that they actually don't know enough about to make a conclusion. Stephen Hawking was guilty of doing the same thing about Philosophy.
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  Yes I discounted everything you have said because you skimmed philosophy. On the contrary, every philosophers skims all the time, because there are tons of publications and it is impossible to carefully work through all of them. But you have to at least take a glance to check whether you should work through them carefully. There is simply no way around that, it's the reality of our work. a dense article from one of the up and coming giants in contemporary philosophy. ROTFL. You've got be kidding me... You know what I was told when I started studying philosophy? If you want to become a famous philosopher, you should write as vague and ominous as possible. People seem to like that, even if makes no sense. Spot on. You just slammed 90% of your contemporaries. Sure, but they do the same. All of them. That's my point. I have not met a single philosopher in my life who didn't mourn about the horrible, horrible trash that they have to read, and I've met quite a few. Not only that, it's a very old tradition among philosophers to hold their discipline in disregard, a tradition that started with Socrates and certainly hasn't ended with Wittgenstein. Nearly every famous philosophy has slammed his discipline, and I'd bet that the less famous did, too, they are just no longer known so it's harder to verify in the library. How can you "promote" philosophy in college without being aware of that? And why would you promote philosophy at all? Nobody should come to philosophy without a burning interest in particular philosophical questions, anyone else drops out of the study program anyway.
fiatjaf 10y ago
So you do think it is possible to "work in philosophy" or a "professional philosopher"? What would Socrates think of that?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
wolfgke 10y ago
> In my personal experience, roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash (give or take), but the remaining 10% are extremely interesting and worth reading both by philosophers and people outside the field. I came to the conclusion that philosophy has such a negative image among many empirical and structural scientists because philosophers don't clearly distance themselves from this kind of crap. So even "serious" philosophers are considered as part of this crap to the outside. Physicists on the other hand are often very outspoken about "crackpot physics" (mathematicians [I am one] are in my mind a little less outspoken, but still very clear in distancing themselves from crackpot mathematics). Having voluntarily heard two lecture series of philosophy, I have to admit that there are some questions that philosophers consider that are actually exciting. But the large problem that I see is that (in opposite to structural or empirical science) the philosophers working on the individual isolated topics seem to have no desire to unite their individual parts into a big united theory (like the abstract and very encompassing frameworks in mathematics or the attempts in physics to unite general relativity with quantum field theories).

hakakadera 10y ago

> "Who can afford, in our modern society, to master the latest developments of String Theory and what's going on in philosophy with its many areas and subareas, all of this at the same time?" When science achieves quantifiable improvements to average human lifespan, our take on life too will change.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> When science achieves quantifiable improvements to average human lifespan You mean like it's done over the last couple hundred years?
- hakakadera 10y ago
  > You mean like it's done over the last couple hundred years? Yes, imagine the world before penicillin and after it. They are not the same.
marcosdumay 10y ago
Almost every area of science is expanding faster than anybody can study it. With increased lifespan, expect increased specialization.
- hakakadera 10y ago
  > "With increased lifespan, expect increased specialization." This is an interesting point. "Advancement" doesn't mean the fields are only getting narrower. Advancement means having to deal with increasing number of multi-disciplinary fields. So, the expectancy of convergence is positive. With marginal increase of lifespan one may only see specialization. But if one dares to imagine a 1.5x to 2x lifespan, the meaning of "time" will change. All economical decisions are also subconsciously factoring lifespan, with a mental model of "division by time" to see if something is worth that fraction of their life. The imbalance created by say a 1.5x or 2x rise in lifespan will surely make way for more scientific enlightenment of masses. Edit: corrected word "Specialization" into "Advancement"

jmcmichael 10y ago

I'm curious why you believe all philosophers need to keep up with mathematics and science, as you appear to imply. Certainly philosophers working in branches that deal directly with science, math, and the nature of reality must maintain an accurate perspective on the latest research and methods to properly do their job. Philosophers of science must actually study the focus of their research. Those working in metaphysics must ensure their theories do not conflict with those of physicists (or ensure they conflict in interesting and valid ways). But what of ethics, aesthetics, politics and other more humanistic branches of philosophy requires those doing working within them to keep pace with the latest developments in physics and maths?

fish55 10y ago
Those are nothing if not grounded in ontology.
- jmcmichael 10y ago
  Do you believe that the ontology of science, namely the fundamental entities of the standard model and general relativity, serve as the only valid foundation for all other ontologies encompassing the human experience?
  - fish55 10y ago
    I haven't thought of ontologies in the plural; I think it resists multiplicity by definition? I expect to be able to chase secondary facts back into their basis in reality.
    - jmcmichael 10y ago
      Anytime one attempts to abstract entities and features from reality in order to work with them - whether you're practicing philosophy, physics, medicine, writing laws, coding animal behavior, or describing a database schema, one must base one's work on an ontology whether it be implicit or explicit. Many ontologies exist - arguably at least as many ontologies exist as conscious entities capable of conceptualization. Your second statement assumes the affirmative to the question I asked; that the ontology of science does indeed serve as the only valid foundation for all other ontologies, unless I'm missing something. Philosophers call this the theory of 'causal closure'[1] It has many implications that you may or may not agree with in the areas of consciousness, free will, ethics, etc. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

Pigo 10y ago

I'm way out of my element here, but I can't pass up the opportunity to ask a professional how something like Roland Omnes book Quantum Philosophy fits into this back-and-forth between physics and philosophy. I found it in a Barnes and Nobles many years ago, and found it steeped in both fields. Is this not relevant, not really ground-breaking in any significant way, or just a oddity in the field philosophy? https://books.google.com/books?id=nVZ7AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=nVZ7AAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PR...

baldfat 10y ago
It's not an oddity. It really makes me sad when the acceptable way is to just bash a whole field of study. Ethics is what drove GPL and RMS' whole life and his talks are about. Linux is based on Philosophy/Ethics. When people dismiss RMS genius (I don't agree with him on most things but recognize him as an amazing mind) they don't hear him through the perspective of Ethics or know much of the discipline.
- JohnStrange 10y ago
  1. It's definitely an oddity. 2. I haven't bashed a whole field, I have merely stated my experience. Curiously, most colleagues I've talked about it share this sentiment. 3. I'm a big fan of RMS and always compare him to Socrates. :-)
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > Curiously, most colleagues I've talked about it share this sentiment. 99% of Moms can answer that one. (If everyone jumped off a building would you?) Just cause everyone else is doing doesn't make it right :) > I'm a big fan of RMS and always compare him to Socrates. :-) Stoic till the ends of his days, and with a smile.
    - JohnStrange 10y ago
      Sure, but just because everyone else is doing also doesn't make it false. Touche!

threatofrain 10y ago

Would you mind, by any chance, pointing out an example of the 10% you find really interesting?

baldfat 10y ago
As a degree holder in Philosophy, having naming my son Soren, I have to say I find that to be just a very negative statement about a great field of study. The vast amount of Philosophy out there has something well worth diving in and the execution could not be a person's style but the deep dive of thought is quite amazing. Also if you don't know the significance of my son's name (Soren) I usually just nod my head nicely and walk away from philosophy "experts."
- askAwayMan 10y ago
  For those wondering, searching Wikipedia brought would lead me to guess Soeren is in reference to Kierkegaard.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- boomboomsubban 10y ago
  It's a realistic view of a great study. Copenhagen was just one university teaching philosophy around 1840, are you able to name a second philosopher that came out of there? How about 1/10?
  - baldfat 10y ago
    > are you able to name a second philosopher that came out of there? Since Kierkegaard was totally forgotten and wasn't rediscovered made popular in Germany by Boltmann till the 20th Century and no English translation till the 1940's I really don't see the significance of your comment. > How about 1/10? Not sure what you are saying there >It's a realistic view of a great study 90% of CS Journal Articles are garbage? 90% of Math in Journals are garbage? 90% of Medicine Writing Journals are Garbage? It isn't acceptable to disparage a Philosophy and call it a waste of time. It's right up there with it being okay to say "I'm not good in math" in professional settings. Both remarks are totally acceptable to say but they really shouldn't

baldfat 10y ago

> I have skimmed over this article and unfortunately have to say ... Yes I discounted everything you have said because you skimmed philosophy. At that one remark I discount anything you would say since Philosophy is 100% not skimmable and that was a dense article from one of the up and coming giants in contemporary philosophy. > roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash One of the great fights is to keep philosophy relevant. In college, teaching philosophy has a large barrier which is students negative view of philosophy. It was always my motive to help students to discover philosophy as an awesome discipline that will expand their world and thought process. You just slammed 90% of your contemporaries. From Article: "Paul Feyerabend: “The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth…” The current upper academic culture has PhDs making broad sweeping comments in fields that they actually don't know enough about to make a conclusion. Stephen Hawking was guilty of doing the same thing about Philosophy.

JohnStrange 10y ago
Yes I discounted everything you have said because you skimmed philosophy. On the contrary, every philosophers skims all the time, because there are tons of publications and it is impossible to carefully work through all of them. But you have to at least take a glance to check whether you should work through them carefully. There is simply no way around that, it's the reality of our work. a dense article from one of the up and coming giants in contemporary philosophy. ROTFL. You've got be kidding me... You know what I was told when I started studying philosophy? If you want to become a famous philosopher, you should write as vague and ominous as possible. People seem to like that, even if makes no sense. Spot on. You just slammed 90% of your contemporaries. Sure, but they do the same. All of them. That's my point. I have not met a single philosopher in my life who didn't mourn about the horrible, horrible trash that they have to read, and I've met quite a few. Not only that, it's a very old tradition among philosophers to hold their discipline in disregard, a tradition that started with Socrates and certainly hasn't ended with Wittgenstein. Nearly every famous philosophy has slammed his discipline, and I'd bet that the less famous did, too, they are just no longer known so it's harder to verify in the library. How can you "promote" philosophy in college without being aware of that? And why would you promote philosophy at all? Nobody should come to philosophy without a burning interest in particular philosophical questions, anyone else drops out of the study program anyway.

fiatjaf 10y ago

So you do think it is possible to "work in philosophy" or a "professional philosopher"? What would Socrates think of that?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

wolfgke 10y ago

> In my personal experience, roughly 90% of philosophy publications are trash (give or take), but the remaining 10% are extremely interesting and worth reading both by philosophers and people outside the field. I came to the conclusion that philosophy has such a negative image among many empirical and structural scientists because philosophers don't clearly distance themselves from this kind of crap. So even "serious" philosophers are considered as part of this crap to the outside. Physicists on the other hand are often very outspoken about "crackpot physics" (mathematicians [I am one] are in my mind a little less outspoken, but still very clear in distancing themselves from crackpot mathematics). Having voluntarily heard two lecture series of philosophy, I have to admit that there are some questions that philosophers consider that are actually exciting. But the large problem that I see is that (in opposite to structural or empirical science) the philosophers working on the individual isolated topics seem to have no desire to unite their individual parts into a big united theory (like the abstract and very encompassing frameworks in mathematics or the attempts in physics to unite general relativity with quantum field theories).