5 ms·

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is called the "demarcation problem" and is surprisingly difficult and subtle. It would seem to me that the analogous "

Distinguishing science from pseudoscience is called the "demarcation problem" and is surprisingly difficult and subtle. It would seem to me that the analogous "philosophical demarcation problem" is even more difficult and probably completely meaningless because of the open and fluid nature of philosophy itself. The author believes that "pseudophilosophy," whatever that is, encourages confused and self-indulgent thinking and therefore must be separated from proper philosophy. But many people would level the same criticism at philosophy itself. Why then is it useful to distinguish between between the two? I don't view this as a problem because philosophy is not science and is concerned with the "hypothesis generation" side of human inquiry. That is to say, the value it provides is in coming up with new, interesting, and diverse points of view that may or may not be correct but certainly broaden the mind. As Paul Feyerbend[1] argues in his book Beyond Method, "anything goes" when it comes to hypothesis generation and the more creative the better. Philosophy, chaotic and ill-defined as philosophy is, it certainly useful for hypothesis generation, and there are many famous cases of scientists citing philosophers[2] as inspiration. Once we pin down a theory and begin to seriously question if it is a good model for reality we have left philosophy and entered the realm of science. I personally don't see how it could be otherwise: theories and ideas don't spring fully formed from the head, but evolve piecemeal as vague ideas are made more coherent through criticism, and this activity is labeled "philosophy." To deny the human mind a space in which to play with half-formed ideas is to put an end to new ideas altogether. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend [2]: https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf

TimTheTinker 6y ago
Philosophy as a field may be “open and fluid” to an extent, but analytical philosophy isn’t at all. As the author writes, there are basic, well-established methods for sniffing out fallacious ideas. All ideas—even those originating from the philosophy department itself—ought to be subjected to basic analytical philosophy before being let out the door. I think that’s what this piece boils down to.
- olooney 6y ago
  Yes, if we were absolutely convinced of the correctness of analytical philosophy and the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter. If we are not quite so certain perhaps we should not prematurely put the kibosh on ideas just because they run afoul of one particular point of view, but rather let them all into the arena to fight it out?
  - TimTheTinker 6y ago
    Are you saying a potentially true idea could commit known fallacies? If so, what you’re really saying is that analytical philosophy is in question... in that case, I don’t think it’s worth arguing with you.
    - olooney 6y ago
      That is correct. As my argument was not a proposition expressed in or reducible to a formal language, nor was it an empirically verifiable statement of fact, it is neither true nor false but is in fact meaningless. There was no point in my expressing it, and there is certainly no point in you arguing with it. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
      - TimTheTinker 6y ago
        An argument or proposition doesn't have to be formal or empirically verifiable (or or even falsifiable) to be subject to the kibosh of basic analysis.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter No doubt hypotheses can be discovered in some other manner. I do not think the epistemic method used in the continental school of philosophy provides any sort of way of verifying those hypotheses from premises.
- 6y ago

TimTheTinker 6y ago

Philosophy as a field may be “open and fluid” to an extent, but analytical philosophy isn’t at all. As the author writes, there are basic, well-established methods for sniffing out fallacious ideas. All ideas—even those originating from the philosophy department itself—ought to be subjected to basic analytical philosophy before being let out the door. I think that’s what this piece boils down to.

olooney 6y ago
Yes, if we were absolutely convinced of the correctness of analytical philosophy and the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter. If we are not quite so certain perhaps we should not prematurely put the kibosh on ideas just because they run afoul of one particular point of view, but rather let them all into the arena to fight it out?
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Are you saying a potentially true idea could commit known fallacies? If so, what you’re really saying is that analytical philosophy is in question... in that case, I don’t think it’s worth arguing with you.
  - olooney 6y ago
    That is correct. As my argument was not a proposition expressed in or reducible to a formal language, nor was it an empirically verifiable statement of fact, it is neither true nor false but is in fact meaningless. There was no point in my expressing it, and there is certainly no point in you arguing with it. As Wittgenstein said, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
    - TimTheTinker 6y ago
      An argument or proposition doesn't have to be formal or empirically verifiable (or or even falsifiable) to be subject to the kibosh of basic analysis.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > the impossibility of good hypotheses arising from other approaches that would indeed be a good filter No doubt hypotheses can be discovered in some other manner. I do not think the epistemic method used in the continental school of philosophy provides any sort of way of verifying those hypotheses from premises.
6y ago