3 ms·

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 meth

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.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Should they ? I guess you're claiming that analytic philosophy is to philosophy in general more like mathematics to physics, rather than 'just another paradigm' ? But are you certain it is so ?
- TimTheTinker 6y ago
  Yes I am. Analytical philosophy is really just a logical approach to analyzing arguments, with a laundry list of known fallacies. It’s not so much an epistemology as a way of easily diffusing fallacious arguments.

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.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Should they ? I guess you're claiming that analytic philosophy is to philosophy in general more like mathematics to physics, rather than 'just another paradigm' ? But are you certain it is so ?

TimTheTinker 6y ago
Yes I am. Analytical philosophy is really just a logical approach to analyzing arguments, with a laundry list of known fallacies. It’s not so much an epistemology as a way of easily diffusing fallacious arguments.