4 ms·

"This argument is philosophical" The actual philosophers do not agree. This viewpoint has been laughed out of the room since the 1980s. Go read some Brandom.

"This argument is philosophical" The actual philosophers do not agree. This viewpoint has been laughed out of the room since the 1980s. Go read some Brandom. Philosophy is not a fancy word for "hypothetical." Science was invented by philosophy, and philosophy has stricter standards, not looser, than the rest of science. . > Except the plot is that somehow, the AI escapes the sandbox. Better science fiction already laughed this out of the room, too. As Larry Niven would say, "you need glands to be a person."

k__ 5y ago
Wasn't it the other way around? Nature philosophy tried to find out how the world works by theorizing in their armchairs and then science came along, did real experiments, and won.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  There was a huge overlap with natural philosophers that were also doing "regular" philosophy. It shares the same mentality of approaching questions, it's just that natural philosophy had a much better method of verifying its output.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Uh, no. Science was invented by nature philosophers to defeat the ridiculous false sciences of the day like alchemy and so forth. Go look up who invented science. You'll see three argued names. All three are philosophers. Science is a tool of philosophy for discarding frauds.
harperlee 5y ago
> philosophy has stricter standards, not looser, than the rest of science. Really? Which are those? To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound model of reality are coherence and persuasiveness of its argumentation, whereas for science is experiment predictability. I’d say either science is stricter (because it requires prediction) or at least that we have a poset of standards (if you argue that science does not require coherence, and enables conflicting models as long as they enable to predict successfully) and neither can be called stricter.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > Really? Which are those? The ones I named in the comment . > To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound model of reality are coherence and persuasiveness of its argumentation Not really, no
  - harperlee 5y ago
    There are no standards named in your comment.
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      Maybe if you don't know who Brandom is shrugs If someone responds to a comment about CLRS by asking you where you learned something about algorithms, and you say "in the place I already named," and they say "you didn't name any algorithm papers," they may feel like they've won a comment argument, but they've lost the opportunity to learn Sometimes your opportunities are bounded by your willingness to look up what you've already been told without demanding to be hand held
kylevedder 5y ago
>philosophy has stricter standards "Stricter" in what sense? There's plenty of philosophy that is absolutely crankery built atop absurd premises, but it sounds like you're "no true Scotsman"ing that away.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Yes, just like the pesky vaxxers "no true scotsman" the ivermectin away by saying "well the trained experts disagree" Clearly, "no true scotsman" can validly be applied to college training in the topic at hand And clearly, if you made a mistake like that, you've ever actually taken a philosophy class Your belief that plenty of philosophy is crankery is noted. Goodbye
drdeca 5y ago
Why is it (not) being a person, relevant to the tasks at hand?

k__ 5y ago

Wasn't it the other way around? Nature philosophy tried to find out how the world works by theorizing in their armchairs and then science came along, did real experiments, and won.

ineedasername 5y ago
There was a huge overlap with natural philosophers that were also doing "regular" philosophy. It shares the same mentality of approaching questions, it's just that natural philosophy had a much better method of verifying its output.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Uh, no. Science was invented by nature philosophers to defeat the ridiculous false sciences of the day like alchemy and so forth. Go look up who invented science. You'll see three argued names. All three are philosophers. Science is a tool of philosophy for discarding frauds.

harperlee 5y ago

> philosophy has stricter standards, not looser, than the rest of science. Really? Which are those? To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound model of reality are coherence and persuasiveness of its argumentation, whereas for science is experiment predictability. I’d say either science is stricter (because it requires prediction) or at least that we have a poset of standards (if you argue that science does not require coherence, and enables conflicting models as long as they enable to predict successfully) and neither can be called stricter.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> Really? Which are those? The ones I named in the comment . > To me it seems that philosophical standards for a sound model of reality are coherence and persuasiveness of its argumentation Not really, no
- harperlee 5y ago
  There are no standards named in your comment.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    Maybe if you don't know who Brandom is shrugs If someone responds to a comment about CLRS by asking you where you learned something about algorithms, and you say "in the place I already named," and they say "you didn't name any algorithm papers," they may feel like they've won a comment argument, but they've lost the opportunity to learn Sometimes your opportunities are bounded by your willingness to look up what you've already been told without demanding to be hand held

kylevedder 5y ago

>philosophy has stricter standards "Stricter" in what sense? There's plenty of philosophy that is absolutely crankery built atop absurd premises, but it sounds like you're "no true Scotsman"ing that away.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Yes, just like the pesky vaxxers "no true scotsman" the ivermectin away by saying "well the trained experts disagree" Clearly, "no true scotsman" can validly be applied to college training in the topic at hand And clearly, if you made a mistake like that, you've ever actually taken a philosophy class Your belief that plenty of philosophy is crankery is noted. Goodbye

drdeca 5y ago

Why is it (not) being a person, relevant to the tasks at hand?