4 ms·

No, she's right. The field of philosophy has failed to separate out its bullshit, so anyone who decides to "learn philosophy" without a lot of prior independent

No, she's right. The field of philosophy has failed to separate out its bullshit, so anyone who decides to "learn philosophy" without a lot of prior independently-generated philosophical sophistication will be lead into a trap. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy-a-diseased-discipline https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FwiPfF8Woe5JrzqEu/philosophy...

Kednicma 6y ago
No, she's wrong. The modern scientific models each form a kernel of truth from among the BS, and today we have to deal with quantum mechanics and its quirky bizarre predictions which invalidate the "just look at it" and "just think about it" schools of philosophical thought. For example, she claims that God exists. A typical trait of God is knowing everything about the universe; say, knowing the positions, momenta, and spin of every particle. But QM gives us Heisenberg's Uncertainty, which prevents anybody, including hypothetical deities, from knowing that information. Indeed, QM typically isn't materialistic; it is wrong to insist that all of those particles definitely have some position and momentum at an instant in time. So, whatever her God is, it isn't the all-powerful one. (The all-powerful God has many better-tread problems in pure metaphysics, like the Problem of Evil, but I don't know what "evil" is and so I'm leaning on QM.) There is no problem in having to learn philosophy by reading surveys of historical ideologies. Philosophy is cumulative, and as little as one semester of studying historical philosophy can massively improve a person's critical thinking skills. Really, the problem is in not taking seriously enough the invalidation of old philosophies by newer thoughts, as we continue to improve what we know. There are many positions that are simply wrong, including positions which we currently think are correct!
- throwawayhacka 6y ago
  you might do well to learn what attributes classical theism claims of a deity before slandering them; any deity bound by the natural laws of the world is hardly in keeping with the claims of theistic traditions of all stripes , excluding some late 20th century evangelical protestants. and the problem of evil is only significant to lay people; in the study of the philosophy of religion it has been considered a rather weak objection for some time now.
  - Kednicma 6y ago
    The wavefunction isn't ontic. This means that, even if God can see the whole universe, they can't actually know the real values associated with each particle; they can only have an epistemic, partial view. You might do well to study some quantum mechanics!
    - throwawayhacka 6y ago
      supernatural means above the natural order; your conception of a deity is out of step with traditional theism and represents straw man building at best
      - Kednicma 6y ago
        No amount of natural evidence (that is, empirical evidence) can ratify a supernatural belief. Following Popper, then, the burden of evidence is on you to overcome quantum mechanics. We're both deists, by the way. I follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the FSM is absurd, which means that I cannot use the FSM's existence to conclude facts, and additionally doesn't affect the material universe. Also, the FSM doesn't maintain cults, encourage child abuse, start wars, nor allow simony. Your "traditional theism" is metaphysically and epistemically weak; it cannot say anything about the world other than that its deity exists and has material affect upon the universe. However, empirically, there is no evidence of the deity (because they are supernatural), and so the deity cannot have any scientific method associated with it. Simply put, there's no room in the natural world for a supernatural being! Every empirical effect is instead considered scientifically. The only gap left would be for you to show that miracles or other supernatural phenomena are real. On that, I have nothing polite to say, just to wish you good luck on what will definitely fail.
        throwawayhacka 6y ago
        we were on the subject of your straw man burning; Which you seem to have already fessed up to ... something which speaks to some redeemable qualities. Let's not pretend that naturalism rests not on metaphysical assumptions.
atoav 6y ago
As someone who studied philosophy (among other things) I think that view is a little bit simplistic. Philosophy has given up the idea of the one universal truth out there that you just have to figure out for a reason. A lot of what surrounds us is a matter of perspective to such an degree that trying to figure out one objective (and maybe on top logically sound) truth behind everything is not just ridiculous, but potentially outright dangerous. I'd be the last person to argue that there is a lot of trash in philosophy. Hermetic stuff that revolves around itself and simulates complexity of thought through choice of words. There are definitely many pearls as well. 90% of everything is trash, that's true nearly everywhere.
enkid 6y ago
That article is clearly not saying that you shouldn't read philosophy at all. It's arguing that there is a lot of crap philosophy, but there's plenty of articles arguing there's a lot of crap physics, psychology, and economics. That doesn't mean we should do that research. Edit: Actually, rereading this article, the author is clearly saying basically the opposite. The author is saying philosophy is useful if it is critical. """Unfortunately, many important problems are fundamentally philosophical problems. Philosophy itself is unavoidable. How can we proceed?""" How can you point to this article as proof that we shouldn't be studying philosophy when the article says it is unaviodable?

Kednicma 6y ago

No, she's wrong. The modern scientific models each form a kernel of truth from among the BS, and today we have to deal with quantum mechanics and its quirky bizarre predictions which invalidate the "just look at it" and "just think about it" schools of philosophical thought. For example, she claims that God exists. A typical trait of God is knowing everything about the universe; say, knowing the positions, momenta, and spin of every particle. But QM gives us Heisenberg's Uncertainty, which prevents anybody, including hypothetical deities, from knowing that information. Indeed, QM typically isn't materialistic; it is wrong to insist that all of those particles definitely have some position and momentum at an instant in time. So, whatever her God is, it isn't the all-powerful one. (The all-powerful God has many better-tread problems in pure metaphysics, like the Problem of Evil, but I don't know what "evil" is and so I'm leaning on QM.) There is no problem in having to learn philosophy by reading surveys of historical ideologies. Philosophy is cumulative, and as little as one semester of studying historical philosophy can massively improve a person's critical thinking skills. Really, the problem is in not taking seriously enough the invalidation of old philosophies by newer thoughts, as we continue to improve what we know. There are many positions that are simply wrong, including positions which we currently think are correct!

throwawayhacka 6y ago
you might do well to learn what attributes classical theism claims of a deity before slandering them; any deity bound by the natural laws of the world is hardly in keeping with the claims of theistic traditions of all stripes , excluding some late 20th century evangelical protestants. and the problem of evil is only significant to lay people; in the study of the philosophy of religion it has been considered a rather weak objection for some time now.
- Kednicma 6y ago
  The wavefunction isn't ontic. This means that, even if God can see the whole universe, they can't actually know the real values associated with each particle; they can only have an epistemic, partial view. You might do well to study some quantum mechanics!
  - throwawayhacka 6y ago
    supernatural means above the natural order; your conception of a deity is out of step with traditional theism and represents straw man building at best
    - Kednicma 6y ago
      No amount of natural evidence (that is, empirical evidence) can ratify a supernatural belief. Following Popper, then, the burden of evidence is on you to overcome quantum mechanics. We're both deists, by the way. I follow the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, the FSM is absurd, which means that I cannot use the FSM's existence to conclude facts, and additionally doesn't affect the material universe. Also, the FSM doesn't maintain cults, encourage child abuse, start wars, nor allow simony. Your "traditional theism" is metaphysically and epistemically weak; it cannot say anything about the world other than that its deity exists and has material affect upon the universe. However, empirically, there is no evidence of the deity (because they are supernatural), and so the deity cannot have any scientific method associated with it. Simply put, there's no room in the natural world for a supernatural being! Every empirical effect is instead considered scientifically. The only gap left would be for you to show that miracles or other supernatural phenomena are real. On that, I have nothing polite to say, just to wish you good luck on what will definitely fail.
      - throwawayhacka 6y ago
        we were on the subject of your straw man burning; Which you seem to have already fessed up to ... something which speaks to some redeemable qualities. Let's not pretend that naturalism rests not on metaphysical assumptions.

atoav 6y ago

As someone who studied philosophy (among other things) I think that view is a little bit simplistic. Philosophy has given up the idea of the one universal truth out there that you just have to figure out for a reason. A lot of what surrounds us is a matter of perspective to such an degree that trying to figure out one objective (and maybe on top logically sound) truth behind everything is not just ridiculous, but potentially outright dangerous. I'd be the last person to argue that there is a lot of trash in philosophy. Hermetic stuff that revolves around itself and simulates complexity of thought through choice of words. There are definitely many pearls as well. 90% of everything is trash, that's true nearly everywhere.

enkid 6y ago

That article is clearly not saying that you shouldn't read philosophy at all. It's arguing that there is a lot of crap philosophy, but there's plenty of articles arguing there's a lot of crap physics, psychology, and economics. That doesn't mean we should do that research. Edit: Actually, rereading this article, the author is clearly saying basically the opposite. The author is saying philosophy is useful if it is critical. """Unfortunately, many important problems are fundamentally philosophical problems. Philosophy itself is unavoidable. How can we proceed?""" How can you point to this article as proof that we shouldn't be studying philosophy when the article says it is unaviodable?