9 ms·

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 --

by dvt 9y ago

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, Nagel) is also equivocal. I went into undergrad with a primary focus on (meta-)logic[1] and I was taught by some of the world's premiere logicians (David Kaplan, Sam Cumming, a few others). But I fell in love with ethics -- a subject I'd never thought I'd enjoy as much as I did. I loved reading Moore, Foote, Anscombe, Geach. My best memories were attending graduate seminars -- studying the philosophy of language and trying to figure out how logical connectives work in regular discourse, or studying abduction and trying to stitch together Horn clauses that seem to point to one conclusion rather than another. Philosophers, in short, do all kinds of things: from pushing the boundaries of exotic logics, to solving ethical problems, to systematizing natural language or understanding the metaphysics of causality. The article just touches on all of the above (in fact, it doesn't discuss modern philosophy at all). If you're interested in philosophy, the SEP[2] is a great resource. [1] https://dvt.name/logic/ https://dvt.name/logic/ [2] https://plato.stanford.edu/ https://plato.stanford.edu/

otakucode 9y ago
When I went to college I took Computer Science as my major and Philosophy as a minor. Beyond the first year, the first day of every class was the same. Everyone introduced themselves and when I said I was a CS major everyone looked at me and wondered if I was in the right room... I love philosophy! For a CS person it is extremely relatable.
Osmium 9y ago
Not down-voting you, because it's an interesting comment, but: > far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. This is just a dumb, specious statement. Would expect better from a philosopher ;) Also, would be interested why you think: > Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. What makes it bogus?
- beevai142 9y ago
  I hear (but is it true?) that for a philosopher to build a career, it is important to be thought as very smart by other philosophers --- and that this is much more so than in other fields, such as the sciences. If it's true, it would explain why appearing smart is stressed.
eighthnate 9y ago
> And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. As someone who studied both computer science and philosophy ( CS and Philosophy degrees ), no. > Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. What? > Philosophy of Mind, apart from a few great minds (Chalmers, Nagel) is also equivocal. What? Not sure how to respond to your comment since you are all over the place. But there are plenty of smart minds in software engineering/computer science and plenty of dumb minds in philosophy. Not sure where you get the idea that philosophers are smarter than "software engineers" and what metric you are using to determine it. But if you have a metric, I'd love for you to lay it out.
smnrchrds 9y ago
> Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Could you please elaborate on this?
- dvt 9y ago
  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 on the metric tensor as well -- and the accompanying math. These topics were merely brushed over (with the kind of brevity you would see in a Netflix documentary) and it left a bad taste in my mouth. At the graduate level, a few (Philosophy of Science) grad students didn't have a grasp on Bayesian inference -- but were attempting to use it in their arguments freely. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I just think science should be left to the scientists.
  - eighthnate 9y ago
    > Maybe I'm being unfair, but I just think science should be left to the scientists. There is a world of difference between science and philosophy of science. Karl Popper wasn't a scientist but that doesn't mean he can't inquire about the philosophy of science. Philosophers in "philosophy of science" aren't doing any science. You do realize that don't you? In your top-level comment, you crow about how smart philosophers are and now you are just deriding philosophers as incapable of understanding science and basic mathematics? "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."
  - smnrchrds 9y ago
    So you are OK with the works of Karl Popper? Because as an outside observer, that's what I consider the phenotype of the philosophy of science.
ue_ 9y ago
>Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. A coherent philosophy of science is required for science to be based on valid premises. I don't know what you mean by this, unless you're referring to something recent which I don't know about. The past philosophy of science has been extremely instrumental to creating the scientific method; Karl Popper is science household name. >On the other hand, it's very political, and a lot of it is mental masturbation. There's nothing wrong with political philosophy, and arguably political philosophy is some of the most important from certain perspectives (pragmatism?). There's also nothing wrong with mental masturbation; by the same measure art, abstract mathematics, theoretical computer science, theoretical physics, poetry and a vast array of human literature is also mental masturbation, yet few would deny its value. I have a hard time dismissing Hegel and Marx because their work involved political philosophy.
nomel 9y ago
> And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison Comparing a software engineer to someone contributing to the advancement of an entire field is not really a fair comparison. This is like comparing someone who has a job in "compliance and ethics" to someone making advancement in quantum computing.
- dvt 9y ago
  I'm comparing people of equal experience in either field. A philosophy undergraduate is, in my experience, much more intelligent than their engineering counterpart. This probably has to do with the fact that in philosophy, writing clear arguments is of primary import. Whereas in engineering, most examinations are problem sets -- where the worst that can happen is a clever gotcha' (see whiteboard interviews).
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Your argument is that the top philosophers are smarter than Carmack. That seems suspect.
    - dvt 9y ago
      Haha, there's no comparison. The top philosophers are smarter than our Supreme Court Justices. And those are certainly smarter than Carmack. And I'm a huge Carmack fanboy.
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        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.
        dvt 9y ago
        Obviously I can't prove it, but we can look at a few metrics: academic performance, influential ideas, impact on society. I think Carmack would lose on all these fronts.
stcredzero 9y ago
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 The part which is political is very relevant. You might not like this one's politics, but his analysis of the politics of the Weimar Republic is cogent and very relevant to today's American and European politics. (It also applies to the Postmodernist Left.) http://a.co/fP0iFwZ http://a.co/fP0iFwZ
Retric 9y ago
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.
- dvt 9y ago
  > there is nothing that verifies mistakes so you can succeeded without being absolutely correct Yes there is. The primary method of argument is proof.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    And yet, proof in this domain isn't precise the way a mathematical proof is precise.
    - dvt 9y ago
      Of course it's precise (in fact, it's isomorphic to a mathematical proof).
      - default-kramer 9y ago
        I suppose it depends on how narrowly you are defining philosophy. But the fact is that we can write computer programs to verify many more kinds of mathematical proofs than we can philosophical "proofs".
      - Retric 9y ago
        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.
        sametmax 9y ago
        Making a mistake has nothing to do with using an accurate system. You can have the most precise ruler in the world and yet use it incorrectly.
imgabe 9y ago
I think you probably had some good points to make about philosophy, but you killed it by turning it into a dick measuring contest.
- deadmetheny 9y ago
  It seems like half his point was that modern philosophy more or less is nothing but a dick measuring contest.
pmoriarty 9y ago
"Philosophers, in short, do all kinds of things: from pushing the boundaries of exotic logics, to solving ethical problems, to systematizing natural language or understanding the metaphysics of causality." I think you're mostly talking about analytic philosophy.[1] That's dominant in English-speaking countries, and in the process of dominating most everywhere else. But Continental philosophy[2] also exists, and has pretty different concerns and methodologies. I encourage everyone to check out both. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
- ue_ 9y ago
  That said, there's a big argument to be made that the distinction between analytic and continental is false, useless and on a shaky foundation of approximations even with massive overlap.
  - lgas 9y ago
    Who usually makes those arguments, analytic philosophers or continental?
hueving 9y ago
>And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. How can you possibly think this subjective, anecdotal statement is going to land well?
wslh 9y ago
> Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Not sure what you are talking about. Godel and Turing demonstrating the limits of some systems are actually giving philosophy of science results. I don't see any bogus in their work.
- hacking_again 9y ago
  Also consider Karl Popper's contributions towards the importance of falsifiability.
- eli_gottlieb 9y ago
  >Godel and Turing demonstrating the limits of some systems are actually giving philosophy of science results. The Halting Problem doesn't really touch on phil-of-sci concerns, which are chiefly about how to do empirical reasoning correctly. You don't need to deductively solve deductively unsolvable problems to do empirical prediction and control correctly.
kelvin0 9y ago
Disparaging (all!) Software Engineers on HN? I'm surprised this comment has not been downvoted into oblivion.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>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, Nagel) is also equivocal. If they're so smart, why is their work so bogus? If their work is so bogus, how come we say they're so smart?

by dvt 9y ago

otakucode 9y ago

When I went to college I took Computer Science as my major and Philosophy as a minor. Beyond the first year, the first day of every class was the same. Everyone introduced themselves and when I said I was a CS major everyone looked at me and wondered if I was in the right room... I love philosophy! For a CS person it is extremely relatable.

Osmium 9y ago

Not down-voting you, because it's an interesting comment, but: > far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. This is just a dumb, specious statement. Would expect better from a philosopher ;) Also, would be interested why you think: > Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. What makes it bogus?

beevai142 9y ago
I hear (but is it true?) that for a philosopher to build a career, it is important to be thought as very smart by other philosophers --- and that this is much more so than in other fields, such as the sciences. If it's true, it would explain why appearing smart is stressed.

eighthnate 9y ago

> And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. As someone who studied both computer science and philosophy ( CS and Philosophy degrees ), no. > Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. What? > Philosophy of Mind, apart from a few great minds (Chalmers, Nagel) is also equivocal. What? Not sure how to respond to your comment since you are all over the place. But there are plenty of smart minds in software engineering/computer science and plenty of dumb minds in philosophy. Not sure where you get the idea that philosophers are smarter than "software engineers" and what metric you are using to determine it. But if you have a metric, I'd love for you to lay it out.

smnrchrds 9y ago

> Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Could you please elaborate on this?

dvt 9y ago
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 on the metric tensor as well -- and the accompanying math. These topics were merely brushed over (with the kind of brevity you would see in a Netflix documentary) and it left a bad taste in my mouth. At the graduate level, a few (Philosophy of Science) grad students didn't have a grasp on Bayesian inference -- but were attempting to use it in their arguments freely. Maybe I'm being unfair, but I just think science should be left to the scientists.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > Maybe I'm being unfair, but I just think science should be left to the scientists. There is a world of difference between science and philosophy of science. Karl Popper wasn't a scientist but that doesn't mean he can't inquire about the philosophy of science. Philosophers in "philosophy of science" aren't doing any science. You do realize that don't you? In your top-level comment, you crow about how smart philosophers are and now you are just deriding philosophers as incapable of understanding science and basic mathematics? "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."
- smnrchrds 9y ago
  So you are OK with the works of Karl Popper? Because as an outside observer, that's what I consider the phenotype of the philosophy of science.

ue_ 9y ago

>Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. A coherent philosophy of science is required for science to be based on valid premises. I don't know what you mean by this, unless you're referring to something recent which I don't know about. The past philosophy of science has been extremely instrumental to creating the scientific method; Karl Popper is science household name. >On the other hand, it's very political, and a lot of it is mental masturbation. There's nothing wrong with political philosophy, and arguably political philosophy is some of the most important from certain perspectives (pragmatism?). There's also nothing wrong with mental masturbation; by the same measure art, abstract mathematics, theoretical computer science, theoretical physics, poetry and a vast array of human literature is also mental masturbation, yet few would deny its value. I have a hard time dismissing Hegel and Marx because their work involved political philosophy.

nomel 9y ago

> And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison Comparing a software engineer to someone contributing to the advancement of an entire field is not really a fair comparison. This is like comparing someone who has a job in "compliance and ethics" to someone making advancement in quantum computing.

dvt 9y ago
I'm comparing people of equal experience in either field. A philosophy undergraduate is, in my experience, much more intelligent than their engineering counterpart. This probably has to do with the fact that in philosophy, writing clear arguments is of primary import. Whereas in engineering, most examinations are problem sets -- where the worst that can happen is a clever gotcha' (see whiteboard interviews).
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Your argument is that the top philosophers are smarter than Carmack. That seems suspect.
  - dvt 9y ago
    Haha, there's no comparison. The top philosophers are smarter than our Supreme Court Justices. And those are certainly smarter than Carmack. And I'm a huge Carmack fanboy.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      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.
      - dvt 9y ago
        Obviously I can't prove it, but we can look at a few metrics: academic performance, influential ideas, impact on society. I think Carmack would lose on all these fronts.

stcredzero 9y ago

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 The part which is political is very relevant. You might not like this one's politics, but his analysis of the politics of the Weimar Republic is cogent and very relevant to today's American and European politics. (It also applies to the Postmodernist Left.) http://a.co/fP0iFwZ http://a.co/fP0iFwZ

Retric 9y ago

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.

dvt 9y ago
> there is nothing that verifies mistakes so you can succeeded without being absolutely correct Yes there is. The primary method of argument is proof.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  And yet, proof in this domain isn't precise the way a mathematical proof is precise.
  - dvt 9y ago
    Of course it's precise (in fact, it's isomorphic to a mathematical proof).
    - default-kramer 9y ago
      I suppose it depends on how narrowly you are defining philosophy. But the fact is that we can write computer programs to verify many more kinds of mathematical proofs than we can philosophical "proofs".
    - Retric 9y ago
      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.
      - sametmax 9y ago
        Making a mistake has nothing to do with using an accurate system. You can have the most precise ruler in the world and yet use it incorrectly.

imgabe 9y ago

I think you probably had some good points to make about philosophy, but you killed it by turning it into a dick measuring contest.

deadmetheny 9y ago
It seems like half his point was that modern philosophy more or less is nothing but a dick measuring contest.

pmoriarty 9y ago

"Philosophers, in short, do all kinds of things: from pushing the boundaries of exotic logics, to solving ethical problems, to systematizing natural language or understanding the metaphysics of causality." I think you're mostly talking about analytic philosophy.[1] That's dominant in English-speaking countries, and in the process of dominating most everywhere else. But Continental philosophy[2] also exists, and has pretty different concerns and methodologies. I encourage everyone to check out both. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy

ue_ 9y ago
That said, there's a big argument to be made that the distinction between analytic and continental is false, useless and on a shaky foundation of approximations even with massive overlap.
- lgas 9y ago
  Who usually makes those arguments, analytic philosophers or continental?

hueving 9y ago

>And people that contribute are incredibly smart -- far smarter than software engineers, by comparison. How can you possibly think this subjective, anecdotal statement is going to land well?

wslh 9y ago

> Philosophy of Science, I think, is almost a completely bogus field. Not sure what you are talking about. Godel and Turing demonstrating the limits of some systems are actually giving philosophy of science results. I don't see any bogus in their work.

hacking_again 9y ago
Also consider Karl Popper's contributions towards the importance of falsifiability.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Godel and Turing demonstrating the limits of some systems are actually giving philosophy of science results. The Halting Problem doesn't really touch on phil-of-sci concerns, which are chiefly about how to do empirical reasoning correctly. You don't need to deductively solve deductively unsolvable problems to do empirical prediction and control correctly.

kelvin0 9y ago

Disparaging (all!) Software Engineers on HN? I'm surprised this comment has not been downvoted into oblivion.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>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, Nagel) is also equivocal. If they're so smart, why is their work so bogus? If their work is so bogus, how come we say they're so smart?