14 ms·

Software Needs Philosophers (2006)

56 points by luu 6y ago

mynegation 6y ago
Needs (2006)
- criddell 6y ago
  In the decade and a half since then, have any software philosophers emerged?
  - jasonhong 6y ago
    Helen Nissenbaum (now at Cornell Tech) wrote a famous paper framing privacy as Contextual Integrity, which has been highly influential for researchers on computer privacy as well as public policy makers. The Wikipedia entry on Contextual Integrity is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_Integrity The basic idea is that rather than focusing on broad rules about privacy (like the Fair Information Practices, which underpins almost all privacy laws today), it's important to understand the norms around what is appropriate and inappropriate in specific contexts. In my field of human-computer interaction, Paul Dourish is perhaps the best known researcher that straddles philosophy and software (though I'm sure philosophers would consider him more of a software person). He has several well-known papers, e.g. on "spaces vs places" for collaborative software (http://www.dourish.com/publications/1996/cscw96-place.pdf http://www.dourish.com/publications/1996/cscw96-place.pdf), on privacy as boundary negotiation, on why ethnographic research shouldn't have to discuss implications for design (http://onemvweb.com/sources/ethnography/implication_design.pdf http://onemvweb.com/sources/ethnography/implication_design.p...), and more.
- lastofthemojito 6y ago
  Speaking of 2006 - what a terrible webpage. No infinite scrolling to choppily load comments as I scroll, no multi-megabyte banner full of photos, no sidebar that accompanies me through the page, occasionally playing peek-a-boo with the content. I mean, it just loads the entire post as HTML and renders it immediately. What savagery.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
feralimal 6y ago
I agree that technology requires philosophy. But 'the world' requires philosophy - technology is just an extension of the world. Discomfitingly, 'the world' or 'society' is really just an idea in an individual's mind - these are just ideas that don't exist independently of individuals. What is really required is for individual's to consider their positions, and to extend whatever they reason into action in the real world. The unfortunate reality is that 99% of people do not consider their positions at all, they simply accept what they are taught as true. However, whether they have considered their worldview deeply or not, they do have one. The default one is what was embedded in their education. Unfortunately again, the nature of education is to make one think in a communitarian way - ie to think 'we', 'society', 'the world', etc. Education does not care for the individual - its aim is to produce individuals that are malleable to the needs of 'society'. So communitarian (not individualistic) thinking is the order of the day. So, sadly, most people, don't really think at all, they are just running their 'educational programming'. Those who are most educated are often the most inactive thinkers. Their position is that they 'believe they know' without having verified anything personally. Nevertheless, everyone has strongly felt opinions, such that they are able to say: 'we need to do such-and-such a worthy cause'. Well, who is 'we'? Why is 'such-and-such' a worthy cause? Do we really need to do it? Do I have the right to force another to do anything? The means to analyse these quite simple questions are beyond the means of most. Anyway, for my sins, I do try to provide my philosophical perspective on things around here. I'm skeptical (most would say ultra-skeptical) and given my understanding of the world, I'm not convinced that technology is helping us. This is not a popular opinion around here! But I will persevere.
- rtkaratekid 6y ago
  Why are people flagging this? Genuinely curious. I don't agree with every point but I think it's a valid comment.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    I would like to hear too. But I think I know. Most people when they hear an opinion that they dislike (possibly because its challenging or worse, true) would rather that opinion disappeared. I think I am downvoted and flagged because I am prepared to voice my personal opinion that has a basis that I am prepared to defend. I am even prepared to change my opinion if I'm corrected! (Shock horror!!) Most people do not want to engage with that - they would rather say that I am undertaking hate speech. So they would actually rather take a minor act of hate against me (even though I have not taken an act against them) - to quash or silence my opinion - than consider an alternative. Consensus is everything, even in a discussion about philosophy! Its sad, but it does tell you much about the world we live in. That people are highly educated to think according to what their authorities tell them - they do not/cannot discern things for themselves. It used to be a popular thing to say 'I don't agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say what you like'. Those days are long gone. Now, its I don't like what you're saying, you're challenging me and as that causes me psychological harm you are inflict hate speech on me. And that I feel threatened, rightly or not, means I am empowered to try to hurt they person I perceive to be threatening me.. Worst to me, is that HN facilitates teeny, tiny acts of violence against me. I can only post a reply once every hour or so at the moment because of downvotes and being flagged. Perhaps that surprises you? Sure, youtube, hn, facebook, etc are private platforms and they can do what they like, but where exactly is the free speech? The effect of the measures these platforms take, is that some thoughts are not allowed - to most, I am committing thoughtcrime and deserve to not have a voice. Its amazing. TLDR - people are a bunch of babies and can't co-exist with opinions that differ to their own. They feel threatened because their worldview is a stack of cards - a small gust or comment could bring it all crashing down. PS - this is a great video from Larken Rose that touches on some of the points I raised, from a different angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoPRLeXEzE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoPRLeXEzE0
bonoboTP 6y ago
I think it's elitist to think that philosophers gave us the ability to talk about facts of practical matters. Indeed modern technology (science+engineering) is an amalgamation of top-down ivory tower-originated ideas and bottom up common sense craftsmen folk practice and knowledge. People knew how to build pyramids before the scientific revolution and before the academic elite people-with-wigs invented ways to deal with induction and laws of motion, falsifiability etc. The enlightenment didn't give us facts and practical common sense. When people say spare me the philosophy, they mean they want to get down to business in a practical way, which they know is possible. Sure, the scientific revolution had a major part of it but a lot of stuff was invented bottom up for practical reasons, as agricultural tools, construction methods, military equipment and not derived from the musings of monks and barons. Rather it was the philosophers who looked at these things and tried to put a theory behind it.
- ragnese 6y ago
  You don't think there was some amount of "Hmm. The first time we tried to build a pyramid, it failed. Perhaps we can contemplate why it failed."? Or do you think they just kept iterating without any reflection? I don't know the literal answer here, but I think I'd consider the reflection between iterations to probably include a degree of philosophizing, even if it was before the western formalization of the scientific method.
  - polynomial 6y ago
    "Hmm, maybe we should make the bottom bigger this time."
- strofcon 6y ago
  Fair points. I think it's worth noting though that while bottom-up invention creates the horse-drawn plow, philosophy is what attempts to answer the question of its rationality, morality, etc. I don't think the two have to be so divorced as you suggest. :-)
  - bonoboTP 6y ago
platz 6y ago
Everyone thinks they can talk about and do philosophy, but if they haven't had any actual training, they're probably doing it wrong and rather tend to make anecdotal and arguments from personal preferences rather than by rigorous analysis.
- strofcon 6y ago
  Terribly true,and a great argument as to our need for philosophers in all eras. :-)
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Someone well-versed in philosophy might well point out that the post you are replying to does not actually present an argument for that proposition - for example, it makes no attempt to show that this alleged widespread misunderstanding of philosophy has had measurable adverse consequences.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Can one make anything other than anecdotal arguments? If your arguments aren't based on your personal reasoning, what are they based on? Also, I don't agree that you need to be trained philosopher to think for yourself. But why do you say so? What is it that the training provides?
  - a_crc 6y ago
    Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms. In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y". The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share. Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy. You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
sramsay 6y ago
There was a golden age of philosophy 2500 years ago (during a period in which there were very few massacres or genocides). Then there was a long "dark age" in which there were no philosophers and lots of massacres, genocides, and general ignorance. Then philosophy had a resurgence and gave birth to the notion of "facts." It's hard to imagine how this absurd fantasy vision of western history can lead to insight about anything.
- polynomial 6y ago
  > gave birth to the notion of "facts." Somewhat ironically, around the same time (+/- 40 yrs) that it gave birth to the notion there is no ultimate truth. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886) Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World (1928)
throwawaygh 6y ago
I am neither a software developer nor a philosopher, but I am a Computer Science researcher who spends a fair amount of time talking with colleagues in the Philosophy department. My view is mostly the opposite of the headline -- philosophers need scientists/engineers/practitioners more than the other way around. Asking and attempting to answer big questions about the world requires, first, understanding the world. And today, understanding the world requires immense technical expertise. One example: philosophers are quick to opine on the problem of bias in machine learning, but almost all lack even a CS 1 level understanding of answers to basic questions like "what is an algorithm?", and therefore mistake these fairly straightforward questions as somehow profound [1]. And all but a precious few philosophers [2] are frankly technically unqualified for discussions about how to actually address bias in ML. Things only get worse when we enter questions about AI & Theory of Mind, computer ethics, etc. -- [1] Of course, "what is an algorithm?" can result in conversations that lead to deep questions; my point is that there is a standard and more-or-less fit for purpose definition that's given in every CS 1 class, and understanding that definition is a prerequisite for deeper interpretations of the question. Diving off the deep end without having e.g. written and analyzed a simple sorting algorithm will always be a waste of time. [2] Often those with either excellent training in the analytic tradition or, more commonly, some serious background in a quantitative field such as Mathematics or Physics.
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  Software people not philosophers promulgated the nonsense idea that "algorithms can't be biased", so I think software people need plenty of help understanding what an algorithm is, with help from philosophy and humanity. Software, being mostly based on math is a prime example of "map that is not the territory".
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    > Software people not philosophers promulgated the nonsense idea that "algorithms can't be biased", so I think software people need plenty of help understanding what an algorithm is, with help from philosophy and humanity. (E: throwaway894345's comment is of much higher quality than mine.) Very few serious software engineers -- and virtually zero computer scientists -- have ever held this opinion. It's an extreme minority view. And, I know a few philosophers who also repeat this nonsense. Those that do hold this view IME are almost always folks who are invested in a personal politics that is congruent with dismissing concerns about bias. Without exception, IME, they're also knee-jerk antagonistic toward other ideas about bias that don't involve computers (eg they're the first ones to complain about implicit bias training). These people also tend to be the annoyingly pedantic type ("bias has a technical meaning in statistics!" sort of thing). In other words, they're politically invested, and no amount of input from philosophers -- or technicians/scientists -- is going to change their strongly held personal politic beliefs. Again, anyone who has spent a moment around philosophers knows that they are just humans who are not immune from the exact same problem.
0x445442 6y ago
If we broaden software to technology, I'm pretty sure enough philosophers on the subject do exist; their just often labeled ludites.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jonsen 6y ago
Expected it to be more like the aim of this book, cowritten by a computer scientist and a philosopher: https://www.amazon.com/Computers-Context-Philosophy-Practice-System/dp/1557864055 https://www.amazon.com/Computers-Context-Philosophy-Practice...
adamsea 6y ago
I just want to point out a few question-able statements about history made in the article: > Does it ever strike you as just a teeny bit odd that after a brief period where philosophy flourished, from maybe 400 B.C.E. to ~100 C.E., we went through a follow-on period of well over one thousand five hundred years during which the Roman Catholic Church enslaved everyone's minds and killed anyone who dared think differently? First, let's not forget that it was the Athenians (the Greeks) who put Socrates to death! So it's not like Ancient Greece was all about this philosophy stuff and we can just go blame the Christians ... I don't know why we saw an 'end' to the golden age of ancient Greek philosophy. BUT .... the Greeks were conquered by the Romans. Christianity developed in the Holy Land and spread through Rome. Early Christianity was highly influenced by Platonism (Plato). So in some ways Christianity is an outgrowth of Greek Philosophy. Or at least not orthogonal to it. And if anything, maybe blame the Romans for the end of Greek philosophy? Though the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy#Hellenistic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy#Helle... > It was philosophers that got us out of that Dark Ages mess, and no small number of them lost their lives in doing so. The Dark Ages weren't really "dark" "As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[3][7][8] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[9] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.[10][11][12] Petrarch's pejorative meaning remains in use,[1][2][13] typically in popular culture which often mischaracterises the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) Since Steve's article uses this history as an analogy for the state of Computer Science / Programming, and then draws on it as an argument for why we need "philosophers" (IMHO philosophers of computer science might well do something completely unexpected and not what is suggested here), I think it's important to address the historical inaccuracies. If anything I think more Science & Technology Studies folks / Philosophy of Computer Science, or anthropology folks studying the culture and implicit biases of computer scientists and software engineers would be useful & kinda awesome.
lastofthemojito 6y ago
I did my CS degree at a Catholic university, so I was mandated to take a couple of either religion or philosophy classes. Being atheist, I opted for philosophy, and while I certainly felt they were a waste of time way back when I was 19, but there are a few things that have really stuck with me. I wish I remember the name that the professor used for this concept, but essentially, he argued that the same activity might be ethical or unethical depending on ease and scale. For example, I'm allowed to look at license plates in public. If I happen to see my neighbor's car (with a memorable license plate) when I'm in town, there's nothing wrong with noting that and making small talk next time I see the neighbor ("Hey, I saw you were down in town on Friday!"). If I put plate readers everywhere I can, and accumulate and sell that information, enabling wide-spread location tracking, that's arguably unethical, even though those license plates are displayed out in public. There's something that changes when certain activities become scaled up and automated.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > I wish I remember the name that the professor used for this concept, but essentially, he argued that the same activity might be ethical or unethical depending on ease and scale. I hope you remember too, since so many drive-by internet comments reject that distinction in order to dismiss someone's valid concerns about something. It'd be a useful concept to reference in such situations.
mannykannot 6y ago
Somewhat ironically, this article contains several examples of the same sort of rhetoric, anecdote and tendentious argumentation as the author is protesting.
anaphor 6y ago
I love this comment[1] that rants about how Steve totally doesn't understand philosophy, and then recommends a book that most philosophers consider biased/mediocre (in comparison to his other work). [1] http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/software-needs-philosophers.html#114590050532079578 http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/software-needs-philo...
- ardy42 6y ago
  Your link isn't taking me to the comment, is this the one you're referring to? > Anonymous Anonymous said... > I started that piece but found it intolerable to read on. I do synpathize with your general point - that philosophy is important (well that appears to be your point from the first paragraphs, but I'm sure I missed the Lisp part that is bound to follow) - but does it have to be so naive? Do you have to announce your alsmost complete ignorance of all matters philosophic with fanfares? First, philosophy, like all science, is not ethically good or bad per se. Just as there were (and still are) scientific theories justifying racism, so there have been (and still are) philosophies justifying oppression, slavery and genocide. Plato and some of his fellow philosophers were working hard to develop a philosophy that sounded good and beautiful while celebrating inequality and slavery(hint: a standard method to achieve this is to invent a heavenly realm of ideals). Similar things can be said about philosophers sympathizing with fascism, like Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger etc. And your claim that there was no philosophy between antiquity and modernity is ludicrous. Medieval occidental philosophy (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas etc.) was of course subordinate to religion and the church but it was still philosophy, whether you like it or not, and much of modern philosophy is influenced by those church men. Steve, why is it that you have to write over-over-overlong blogs about subjects you don't understand? It's not a genuine interest in philosphy, I must conclude. Mind you, philosophy isn't about screaming as loud as you can, it's about thinking - studying - a lot of studying, actually - before talking. Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses as they used to say in the old days. You SHOULD absolutely get hold of some Russell before you continue discracing yourself like this. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_(Russell) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_(... > And please, please SHUT UP! > 10:41 AM, APRIL 24, 2006
  - 6y ago

56 points by luu 6y ago

mynegation 6y ago

Needs (2006)

criddell 6y ago
In the decade and a half since then, have any software philosophers emerged?
- jasonhong 6y ago
  Helen Nissenbaum (now at Cornell Tech) wrote a famous paper framing privacy as Contextual Integrity, which has been highly influential for researchers on computer privacy as well as public policy makers. The Wikipedia entry on Contextual Integrity is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_Integrity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contextual_Integrity The basic idea is that rather than focusing on broad rules about privacy (like the Fair Information Practices, which underpins almost all privacy laws today), it's important to understand the norms around what is appropriate and inappropriate in specific contexts. In my field of human-computer interaction, Paul Dourish is perhaps the best known researcher that straddles philosophy and software (though I'm sure philosophers would consider him more of a software person). He has several well-known papers, e.g. on "spaces vs places" for collaborative software (http://www.dourish.com/publications/1996/cscw96-place.pdf http://www.dourish.com/publications/1996/cscw96-place.pdf), on privacy as boundary negotiation, on why ethnographic research shouldn't have to discuss implications for design (http://onemvweb.com/sources/ethnography/implication_design.pdf http://onemvweb.com/sources/ethnography/implication_design.p...), and more.
lastofthemojito 6y ago
Speaking of 2006 - what a terrible webpage. No infinite scrolling to choppily load comments as I scroll, no multi-megabyte banner full of photos, no sidebar that accompanies me through the page, occasionally playing peek-a-boo with the content. I mean, it just loads the entire post as HTML and renders it immediately. What savagery.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

feralimal 6y ago

I agree that technology requires philosophy. But 'the world' requires philosophy - technology is just an extension of the world. Discomfitingly, 'the world' or 'society' is really just an idea in an individual's mind - these are just ideas that don't exist independently of individuals. What is really required is for individual's to consider their positions, and to extend whatever they reason into action in the real world. The unfortunate reality is that 99% of people do not consider their positions at all, they simply accept what they are taught as true. However, whether they have considered their worldview deeply or not, they do have one. The default one is what was embedded in their education. Unfortunately again, the nature of education is to make one think in a communitarian way - ie to think 'we', 'society', 'the world', etc. Education does not care for the individual - its aim is to produce individuals that are malleable to the needs of 'society'. So communitarian (not individualistic) thinking is the order of the day. So, sadly, most people, don't really think at all, they are just running their 'educational programming'. Those who are most educated are often the most inactive thinkers. Their position is that they 'believe they know' without having verified anything personally. Nevertheless, everyone has strongly felt opinions, such that they are able to say: 'we need to do such-and-such a worthy cause'. Well, who is 'we'? Why is 'such-and-such' a worthy cause? Do we really need to do it? Do I have the right to force another to do anything? The means to analyse these quite simple questions are beyond the means of most. Anyway, for my sins, I do try to provide my philosophical perspective on things around here. I'm skeptical (most would say ultra-skeptical) and given my understanding of the world, I'm not convinced that technology is helping us. This is not a popular opinion around here! But I will persevere.

rtkaratekid 6y ago
Why are people flagging this? Genuinely curious. I don't agree with every point but I think it's a valid comment.
- feralimal 6y ago
  I would like to hear too. But I think I know. Most people when they hear an opinion that they dislike (possibly because its challenging or worse, true) would rather that opinion disappeared. I think I am downvoted and flagged because I am prepared to voice my personal opinion that has a basis that I am prepared to defend. I am even prepared to change my opinion if I'm corrected! (Shock horror!!) Most people do not want to engage with that - they would rather say that I am undertaking hate speech. So they would actually rather take a minor act of hate against me (even though I have not taken an act against them) - to quash or silence my opinion - than consider an alternative. Consensus is everything, even in a discussion about philosophy! Its sad, but it does tell you much about the world we live in. That people are highly educated to think according to what their authorities tell them - they do not/cannot discern things for themselves. It used to be a popular thing to say 'I don't agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say what you like'. Those days are long gone. Now, its I don't like what you're saying, you're challenging me and as that causes me psychological harm you are inflict hate speech on me. And that I feel threatened, rightly or not, means I am empowered to try to hurt they person I perceive to be threatening me.. Worst to me, is that HN facilitates teeny, tiny acts of violence against me. I can only post a reply once every hour or so at the moment because of downvotes and being flagged. Perhaps that surprises you? Sure, youtube, hn, facebook, etc are private platforms and they can do what they like, but where exactly is the free speech? The effect of the measures these platforms take, is that some thoughts are not allowed - to most, I am committing thoughtcrime and deserve to not have a voice. Its amazing. TLDR - people are a bunch of babies and can't co-exist with opinions that differ to their own. They feel threatened because their worldview is a stack of cards - a small gust or comment could bring it all crashing down. PS - this is a great video from Larken Rose that touches on some of the points I raised, from a different angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoPRLeXEzE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoPRLeXEzE0

bonoboTP 6y ago

I think it's elitist to think that philosophers gave us the ability to talk about facts of practical matters. Indeed modern technology (science+engineering) is an amalgamation of top-down ivory tower-originated ideas and bottom up common sense craftsmen folk practice and knowledge. People knew how to build pyramids before the scientific revolution and before the academic elite people-with-wigs invented ways to deal with induction and laws of motion, falsifiability etc. The enlightenment didn't give us facts and practical common sense. When people say spare me the philosophy, they mean they want to get down to business in a practical way, which they know is possible. Sure, the scientific revolution had a major part of it but a lot of stuff was invented bottom up for practical reasons, as agricultural tools, construction methods, military equipment and not derived from the musings of monks and barons. Rather it was the philosophers who looked at these things and tried to put a theory behind it.

ragnese 6y ago
You don't think there was some amount of "Hmm. The first time we tried to build a pyramid, it failed. Perhaps we can contemplate why it failed."? Or do you think they just kept iterating without any reflection? I don't know the literal answer here, but I think I'd consider the reflection between iterations to probably include a degree of philosophizing, even if it was before the western formalization of the scientific method.
- polynomial 6y ago
  "Hmm, maybe we should make the bottom bigger this time."
strofcon 6y ago
Fair points. I think it's worth noting though that while bottom-up invention creates the horse-drawn plow, philosophy is what attempts to answer the question of its rationality, morality, etc. I don't think the two have to be so divorced as you suggest. :-)
- bonoboTP 6y ago

platz 6y ago

Everyone thinks they can talk about and do philosophy, but if they haven't had any actual training, they're probably doing it wrong and rather tend to make anecdotal and arguments from personal preferences rather than by rigorous analysis.

strofcon 6y ago
Terribly true,and a great argument as to our need for philosophers in all eras. :-)
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Someone well-versed in philosophy might well point out that the post you are replying to does not actually present an argument for that proposition - for example, it makes no attempt to show that this alleged widespread misunderstanding of philosophy has had measurable adverse consequences.
feralimal 6y ago
Can one make anything other than anecdotal arguments? If your arguments aren't based on your personal reasoning, what are they based on? Also, I don't agree that you need to be trained philosopher to think for yourself. But why do you say so? What is it that the training provides?
- a_crc 6y ago
  Here's my take on your questions. Anecdotes [1] generally aren't the focus of academic philosophy. Modern philosophy focuses on arguments from Axiom [2] where a statement is taken to be true as a starting point for an argument. Responses to the piece of philosophy then take the form of criticism of the logic of the statements contingent on the axiom, or as arguments based on different axioms. In other words an anecdotal argument is "I've seen and heard x, so I believe y" an axiomatic argument is "If x if true, we should believe y". The important difference is the accessibility of each to logical analysis and discussion. Anyone can engage with an axiomatic argument by considering its premise and following statements. Anecdotal evidence relies entirely on personal experiences that another arguer may not share. Training in academic philosophy prepares a person to engage in logically consistent criticism of existing philosophy and the production of well argued original works of academic philosophy. You are right that you don't have to be a trained philosopher to think for yourself. In the same way that training in martial arts helps with punching, or training in coding helps you write better software, training in thinking helps you think. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdote [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

sramsay 6y ago

There was a golden age of philosophy 2500 years ago (during a period in which there were very few massacres or genocides). Then there was a long "dark age" in which there were no philosophers and lots of massacres, genocides, and general ignorance. Then philosophy had a resurgence and gave birth to the notion of "facts." It's hard to imagine how this absurd fantasy vision of western history can lead to insight about anything.

polynomial 6y ago
> gave birth to the notion of "facts." Somewhat ironically, around the same time (+/- 40 yrs) that it gave birth to the notion there is no ultimate truth. Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (1886) Carnap, The Logical Structure of the World (1928)

throwawaygh 6y ago

I am neither a software developer nor a philosopher, but I am a Computer Science researcher who spends a fair amount of time talking with colleagues in the Philosophy department. My view is mostly the opposite of the headline -- philosophers need scientists/engineers/practitioners more than the other way around. Asking and attempting to answer big questions about the world requires, first, understanding the world. And today, understanding the world requires immense technical expertise. One example: philosophers are quick to opine on the problem of bias in machine learning, but almost all lack even a CS 1 level understanding of answers to basic questions like "what is an algorithm?", and therefore mistake these fairly straightforward questions as somehow profound [1]. And all but a precious few philosophers [2] are frankly technically unqualified for discussions about how to actually address bias in ML. Things only get worse when we enter questions about AI & Theory of Mind, computer ethics, etc. -- [1] Of course, "what is an algorithm?" can result in conversations that lead to deep questions; my point is that there is a standard and more-or-less fit for purpose definition that's given in every CS 1 class, and understanding that definition is a prerequisite for deeper interpretations of the question. Diving off the deep end without having e.g. written and analyzed a simple sorting algorithm will always be a waste of time. [2] Often those with either excellent training in the analytic tradition or, more commonly, some serious background in a quantitative field such as Mathematics or Physics.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Software people not philosophers promulgated the nonsense idea that "algorithms can't be biased", so I think software people need plenty of help understanding what an algorithm is, with help from philosophy and humanity. Software, being mostly based on math is a prime example of "map that is not the territory".
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  > Software people not philosophers promulgated the nonsense idea that "algorithms can't be biased", so I think software people need plenty of help understanding what an algorithm is, with help from philosophy and humanity. (E: throwaway894345's comment is of much higher quality than mine.) Very few serious software engineers -- and virtually zero computer scientists -- have ever held this opinion. It's an extreme minority view. And, I know a few philosophers who also repeat this nonsense. Those that do hold this view IME are almost always folks who are invested in a personal politics that is congruent with dismissing concerns about bias. Without exception, IME, they're also knee-jerk antagonistic toward other ideas about bias that don't involve computers (eg they're the first ones to complain about implicit bias training). These people also tend to be the annoyingly pedantic type ("bias has a technical meaning in statistics!" sort of thing). In other words, they're politically invested, and no amount of input from philosophers -- or technicians/scientists -- is going to change their strongly held personal politic beliefs. Again, anyone who has spent a moment around philosophers knows that they are just humans who are not immune from the exact same problem.

0x445442 6y ago

If we broaden software to technology, I'm pretty sure enough philosophers on the subject do exist; their just often labeled ludites.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jonsen 6y ago

Expected it to be more like the aim of this book, cowritten by a computer scientist and a philosopher: https://www.amazon.com/Computers-Context-Philosophy-Practice-System/dp/1557864055 https://www.amazon.com/Computers-Context-Philosophy-Practice...

adamsea 6y ago

I just want to point out a few question-able statements about history made in the article: > Does it ever strike you as just a teeny bit odd that after a brief period where philosophy flourished, from maybe 400 B.C.E. to ~100 C.E., we went through a follow-on period of well over one thousand five hundred years during which the Roman Catholic Church enslaved everyone's minds and killed anyone who dared think differently? First, let's not forget that it was the Athenians (the Greeks) who put Socrates to death! So it's not like Ancient Greece was all about this philosophy stuff and we can just go blame the Christians ... I don't know why we saw an 'end' to the golden age of ancient Greek philosophy. BUT .... the Greeks were conquered by the Romans. Christianity developed in the Holy Land and spread through Rome. Early Christianity was highly influenced by Platonism (Plato). So in some ways Christianity is an outgrowth of Greek Philosophy. Or at least not orthogonal to it. And if anything, maybe blame the Romans for the end of Greek philosophy? Though the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy#Hellenistic_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_philosophy#Helle... > It was philosophers that got us out of that Dark Ages mess, and no small number of them lost their lives in doing so. The Dark Ages weren't really "dark" "As the accomplishments of the era came to be better understood in the 19th and 20th centuries, scholars began restricting the "Dark Ages" appellation to the Early Middle Ages (c. 5th–10th century),[3][7][8] and now scholars also reject its usage in this period.[9] The majority of modern scholars avoid the term altogether due to its negative connotations, finding it misleading and inaccurate.[10][11][12] Petrarch's pejorative meaning remains in use,[1][2][13] typically in popular culture which often mischaracterises the Middle Ages as a time of violence and backwardness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) Since Steve's article uses this history as an analogy for the state of Computer Science / Programming, and then draws on it as an argument for why we need "philosophers" (IMHO philosophers of computer science might well do something completely unexpected and not what is suggested here), I think it's important to address the historical inaccuracies. If anything I think more Science & Technology Studies folks / Philosophy of Computer Science, or anthropology folks studying the culture and implicit biases of computer scientists and software engineers would be useful & kinda awesome.

lastofthemojito 6y ago

I did my CS degree at a Catholic university, so I was mandated to take a couple of either religion or philosophy classes. Being atheist, I opted for philosophy, and while I certainly felt they were a waste of time way back when I was 19, but there are a few things that have really stuck with me. I wish I remember the name that the professor used for this concept, but essentially, he argued that the same activity might be ethical or unethical depending on ease and scale. For example, I'm allowed to look at license plates in public. If I happen to see my neighbor's car (with a memorable license plate) when I'm in town, there's nothing wrong with noting that and making small talk next time I see the neighbor ("Hey, I saw you were down in town on Friday!"). If I put plate readers everywhere I can, and accumulate and sell that information, enabling wide-spread location tracking, that's arguably unethical, even though those license plates are displayed out in public. There's something that changes when certain activities become scaled up and automated.

ardy42 6y ago
> I wish I remember the name that the professor used for this concept, but essentially, he argued that the same activity might be ethical or unethical depending on ease and scale. I hope you remember too, since so many drive-by internet comments reject that distinction in order to dismiss someone's valid concerns about something. It'd be a useful concept to reference in such situations.

mannykannot 6y ago

Somewhat ironically, this article contains several examples of the same sort of rhetoric, anecdote and tendentious argumentation as the author is protesting.

anaphor 6y ago

I love this comment[1] that rants about how Steve totally doesn't understand philosophy, and then recommends a book that most philosophers consider biased/mediocre (in comparison to his other work). [1] http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/software-needs-philosophers.html#114590050532079578 http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/software-needs-philo...

ardy42 6y ago
Your link isn't taking me to the comment, is this the one you're referring to? > Anonymous Anonymous said... > I started that piece but found it intolerable to read on. I do synpathize with your general point - that philosophy is important (well that appears to be your point from the first paragraphs, but I'm sure I missed the Lisp part that is bound to follow) - but does it have to be so naive? Do you have to announce your alsmost complete ignorance of all matters philosophic with fanfares? First, philosophy, like all science, is not ethically good or bad per se. Just as there were (and still are) scientific theories justifying racism, so there have been (and still are) philosophies justifying oppression, slavery and genocide. Plato and some of his fellow philosophers were working hard to develop a philosophy that sounded good and beautiful while celebrating inequality and slavery(hint: a standard method to achieve this is to invent a heavenly realm of ideals). Similar things can be said about philosophers sympathizing with fascism, like Carl Schmitt, Martin Heidegger etc. And your claim that there was no philosophy between antiquity and modernity is ludicrous. Medieval occidental philosophy (Augustine, Thomas Aquinas etc.) was of course subordinate to religion and the church but it was still philosophy, whether you like it or not, and much of modern philosophy is influenced by those church men. Steve, why is it that you have to write over-over-overlong blogs about subjects you don't understand? It's not a genuine interest in philosphy, I must conclude. Mind you, philosophy isn't about screaming as loud as you can, it's about thinking - studying - a lot of studying, actually - before talking. Si Tacuisses, Philosophus Mansisses as they used to say in the old days. You SHOULD absolutely get hold of some Russell before you continue discracing yourself like this. Have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_(Russell) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Philosophy_(... > And please, please SHUT UP! > 10:41 AM, APRIL 24, 2006
- 6y ago