5 ms·

I disagree. I find math much more interesting. Philosophy is vague. It's all guesses and interpretation, with the exception perhaps of pure logic. I like th

I disagree. I find math much more interesting. Philosophy is vague. It's all guesses and interpretation, with the exception perhaps of pure logic. I like the purity of math. It's all a matter of preference.

pizza 10y ago
I feel as though math and philosophy are both logic but with differing acceptable conventions of well-definedness (insert https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/)
anamoulous 10y ago
Like in math, it is humbling to revisit philosophy from a historical perspective and to be reminded of the cumulative impact of simple ideas (to us) that were being considered 2000+ years ago.
Swizec 10y ago
I always saw philosophy and maths as the same. Philosophy is what math and logic especially looks like when you're using words instead of leibnitz notation and other modern notations. I mean, howdo you explain modus ponens without the notation? You say that not A and not B is the same as not A or B. And that's a poor transpilation from math notation to words. What if you never saw the math notation and had to use regular words? And then to spell out the proof? Oof
ThomPete 10y ago
The concepts you deal with in philosophy are vague, the challenge is to provide very precise analysis of these vague (fuzzy?) concepts. But yeah I don't think one is better than the other. Each provide value. I would actually claim that to live your best life, be an engineer. They seem to me at least to be living in that sweet-spot between the abstract, creative and the concrete.
- apocalypstyx 10y ago
  Along with a increased chance of being a creationist and/or jihadist. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis-explained/ http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis-... http://www.theness.com/index.php/creationists-mechanical-engineers-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ http://www.theness.com/index.php/creationists-mechanical-eng...
  - danbruc 10y ago
    This has a 99% probability of being absolute nonsense. Looks more like 30 years of anecdotal evidence and hearsay. Try find a credible source with actual numbers.
    - apocalypstyx 10y ago
      I'd love to know where that 99% comes from. (Or maybe I wouldn't.) I'd say there's far more than anecdotal evidence, but not, obviously, not enough to draw necessarily firm conclusions. So I would say there's enough question to sustain further scientific inquiry. That, interestingly enough, puts us in a position at odds with one of a common traits noted among engineers, in psychological terms: 'need for closure'; which would put the 'engineering mindset' in conflict with the 'scientific mindset', due to the open-ended nature of the science. (Of course, this is only my own speculation.) Which is why we get things like this: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ee/ http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ee/ Harder numbers: http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/Engineers%20of%20Jihad.pdf http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/Engineers%20of%20Jih... (expanded book form) http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html (less numbers, but foundational) http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=212 http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=212 http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=235 http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=235
      - danbruc 10y ago
        I pulled the 99% out of thin air, I just wanted to emphasize how small I estimate the chances of this being true. I found one analysis [1] that found that creationist or only half as likely to be engineers as the general population, admittedly only using data from a preexisting survey as proxy for the question at hand. Maybe it is a naive view on my side but I expect that additional education will make it less likely that one believes religious claims to be true in general and this extends to becoming an engineer and being a creationist. But even if there was indeed a correlation of the form claimed by the Salem hypothesis, I would naturally want to look for traits that make it more likely for one to become an engineer and a creationist, not for something that causes engineers to become creationists. You did not explicitly spell it out this way and I am inclined to think you do not think this causation exists, but your response to a comment suggesting that it might be a good choice to become an engineer at least allows the interpretation that becoming an engineer causes becoming a creationist. And I obviously consider the idea of a causal relationship between being an engineer and being a creationist even more unlikely than that of certain traits increasing the likelihood of becoming an engineer as well as a creationist. Not that it is unlikely in the general case that learning about X makes one more likely to also believe Y, that is actually certainly pretty common, but in the concrete case I am really unable to see which things one learns when becoming an engineer are suitable to turn one into a creationist. Finally I am not sure what you wanted the express with the Evolution 2.0 article, but at least in the linked article the reasoning is heavily flawed. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/Xunl5SlJmZc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/Xunl5Sl...
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > the challenge is to provide very precise analysis of these vague (fuzzy?) concepts Does common philosophical discourse generally attempt this though?
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    No which is why it's a challenge. Most philosophers are not very careful thinkers. There is a lot of circular thinking a lot of apriori assumptions and so one. Mostly the designers who are worth listening to IMO are those who broke down previously held illusions.
cpsempek 10y ago
I do as well, to some extent. However, let us never lose sight of the fact that any foundational axioms (e.g., ZFC) are decided upon on a purely philosophical basis. It is interesting to see such philosophical consideration around the "behavior" of truths when reading about Frege's early developments in propositional logic.

pizza 10y ago

I feel as though math and philosophy are both logic but with differing acceptable conventions of well-definedness (insert https://xkcd.com/435/ https://xkcd.com/435/)

anamoulous 10y ago

Like in math, it is humbling to revisit philosophy from a historical perspective and to be reminded of the cumulative impact of simple ideas (to us) that were being considered 2000+ years ago.

Swizec 10y ago

I always saw philosophy and maths as the same. Philosophy is what math and logic especially looks like when you're using words instead of leibnitz notation and other modern notations. I mean, howdo you explain modus ponens without the notation? You say that not A and not B is the same as not A or B. And that's a poor transpilation from math notation to words. What if you never saw the math notation and had to use regular words? And then to spell out the proof? Oof

ThomPete 10y ago

The concepts you deal with in philosophy are vague, the challenge is to provide very precise analysis of these vague (fuzzy?) concepts. But yeah I don't think one is better than the other. Each provide value. I would actually claim that to live your best life, be an engineer. They seem to me at least to be living in that sweet-spot between the abstract, creative and the concrete.

apocalypstyx 10y ago
Along with a increased chance of being a creationist and/or jihadist. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis-explained/ http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2007/11/11/the-salem-hypothesis-... http://www.theness.com/index.php/creationists-mechanical-engineers-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/ http://www.theness.com/index.php/creationists-mechanical-eng...
- danbruc 10y ago
  This has a 99% probability of being absolute nonsense. Looks more like 30 years of anecdotal evidence and hearsay. Try find a credible source with actual numbers.
  - apocalypstyx 10y ago
    I'd love to know where that 99% comes from. (Or maybe I wouldn't.) I'd say there's far more than anecdotal evidence, but not, obviously, not enough to draw necessarily firm conclusions. So I would say there's enough question to sustain further scientific inquiry. That, interestingly enough, puts us in a position at odds with one of a common traits noted among engineers, in psychological terms: 'need for closure'; which would put the 'engineering mindset' in conflict with the 'scientific mindset', due to the open-ended nature of the science. (Of course, this is only my own speculation.) Which is why we get things like this: http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ee/ http://cosmicfingerprints.com/ee/ Harder numbers: http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/Engineers%20of%20Jihad.pdf http://www.nuff.ox.ac.uk/users/gambetta/Engineers%20of%20Jih... (expanded book form) http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10656.html (less numbers, but foundational) http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=212 http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=212 http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=235 http://www.sicotests.com/psyarticle.asp?id=235
    - danbruc 10y ago
      I pulled the 99% out of thin air, I just wanted to emphasize how small I estimate the chances of this being true. I found one analysis [1] that found that creationist or only half as likely to be engineers as the general population, admittedly only using data from a preexisting survey as proxy for the question at hand. Maybe it is a naive view on my side but I expect that additional education will make it less likely that one believes religious claims to be true in general and this extends to becoming an engineer and being a creationist. But even if there was indeed a correlation of the form claimed by the Salem hypothesis, I would naturally want to look for traits that make it more likely for one to become an engineer and a creationist, not for something that causes engineers to become creationists. You did not explicitly spell it out this way and I am inclined to think you do not think this causation exists, but your response to a comment suggesting that it might be a good choice to become an engineer at least allows the interpretation that becoming an engineer causes becoming a creationist. And I obviously consider the idea of a causal relationship between being an engineer and being a creationist even more unlikely than that of certain traits increasing the likelihood of becoming an engineer as well as a creationist. Not that it is unlikely in the general case that learning about X makes one more likely to also believe Y, that is actually certainly pretty common, but in the concrete case I am really unable to see which things one learns when becoming an engineer are suitable to turn one into a creationist. Finally I am not sure what you wanted the express with the Evolution 2.0 article, but at least in the linked article the reasoning is heavily flawed. [1] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/Xunl5SlJmZc https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/talk.origins/Xunl5Sl...
Chris2048 10y ago
> the challenge is to provide very precise analysis of these vague (fuzzy?) concepts Does common philosophical discourse generally attempt this though?
- ThomPete 10y ago
  No which is why it's a challenge. Most philosophers are not very careful thinkers. There is a lot of circular thinking a lot of apriori assumptions and so one. Mostly the designers who are worth listening to IMO are those who broke down previously held illusions.

cpsempek 10y ago

I do as well, to some extent. However, let us never lose sight of the fact that any foundational axioms (e.g., ZFC) are decided upon on a purely philosophical basis. It is interesting to see such philosophical consideration around the "behavior" of truths when reading about Frege's early developments in propositional logic.