4 ms·

That's not my experience at all, rather I see a lot of philosophers giving good pointers where their field borders on others, and then being shot down or ignore

That's not my experience at all, rather I see a lot of philosophers giving good pointers where their field borders on others, and then being shot down or ignored. I'd actually be interested in an example of this, as I don't think I've encountered it so far, although I'm admittedly not that engaged either. By far the worst offenders of presumptuousness must be old physicists though, followed by old computer scientists. Thinking of Michio Kaku talk about philosophy still makes me physically cringe.

btilly 5y ago
Can you provide examples of your "good pointers"? My experience is that the feedback provided by philosophers sounds good to the philosophers, but is actually useless to practitioners. And in technical subjects, like math, computer science and physics, it is important to develop a really good BS filter. That said, I am also sympathetic to http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html, so must admit some hostility to the current practice of philosophy.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > Few were sufficiently correct that people have forgotten who discovered what they discovered. This is laughable. Most of our culture was once philosophy, and I sure don't know whose. If you define philosophy as “that which has not escaped the realm of theoretical philosophy”, then sure. But we use practical philosophy every day!
  - lmm 5y ago
    All fields were once "philosophy", that's a naming artifact not an insight. What's being claimed is something like: when "natural philosophy" and "philosophy" diverged into distinct fields, "natural philosophy" got the good stuff.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      “Natural philosophy” has contributed basically nothing to the structure of our society. To our ideas of fairness, and ethics, and how to co-operate with untrustworthy strangers. Its impacts, like medicine, have, but that's like saying trees are responsible for how our society works. So much of this, we just take for granted. Philosophy is either obvious or wrong.
      - lmm 5y ago
        Is there any evidence that the-thing-we-call-philosophy-today has actually contributed positively to those things? I've seen it claimed that professional ethicists act less ethically in their daily lives than the average member of the public, and most ethics training classes seem at best useless.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        There is no evidence. The thing we (non-philosophers) call philosophy today is like the thing we call pure mathematics today: it's the philosophy that hasn't been useful, and therefore hasn't been moved into another field like epistemology or philosophy-of-science or probability theory.
- voidhorse 5y ago
  I think there’s an inherent tension between what philosophers are trying to do and what practitioners in specific fields are trying to do that leads to the bad blood. If you’re a philosopher, you’re generally trying to look at things from a general enough perspective that you might argue for a radical shift in the way we do things and call out the assumptions that are otherwise taken as axioms of the field—the water we swim around in. If you’re a practitioner, you’re focused on swimming. Core axioms and prevailing theory are your presuppositions—you’re just focused on getting things done within the confines of the prevailing theory/framework, perhaps nudging it every so often in particular directions based on new discoveries—its quite rare that a working scientist sparks an actual theoretic revision and becomes the next Einstein (see thomas Kuhn). So yes, philosophers are totally useless when it comes to getting practical stuff done because that’s generally not the space they are attempting to help with or illuminate.
  - btilly 5y ago
    That isn't the problem. The problem is that philosophers believe that they know things from first principles which, in fact, have been falsified by science. Therefore the thing that they are saying is wrong. See https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helpe... for a famous such clash. Please be assured that legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap.
    - morelisp 5y ago
      > legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap. I don't know, this case is somewhat infamous, but it really speaks more to the Nobel committee's own biases than the field of philosophy. Bergson was prolific and influential, but also unpopular within many philosophical circles outside of the Francosphere, and also inside it by the time the post-structuralists came along. Anyway, wait until you find out what the legions of lesser scientists have been up to since 1921...

btilly 5y ago

Can you provide examples of your "good pointers"? My experience is that the feedback provided by philosophers sounds good to the philosophers, but is actually useless to practitioners. And in technical subjects, like math, computer science and physics, it is important to develop a really good BS filter. That said, I am also sympathetic to http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html, so must admit some hostility to the current practice of philosophy.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
> Few were sufficiently correct that people have forgotten who discovered what they discovered. This is laughable. Most of our culture was once philosophy, and I sure don't know whose. If you define philosophy as “that which has not escaped the realm of theoretical philosophy”, then sure. But we use practical philosophy every day!
- lmm 5y ago
  All fields were once "philosophy", that's a naming artifact not an insight. What's being claimed is something like: when "natural philosophy" and "philosophy" diverged into distinct fields, "natural philosophy" got the good stuff.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    “Natural philosophy” has contributed basically nothing to the structure of our society. To our ideas of fairness, and ethics, and how to co-operate with untrustworthy strangers. Its impacts, like medicine, have, but that's like saying trees are responsible for how our society works. So much of this, we just take for granted. Philosophy is either obvious or wrong.
    - lmm 5y ago
      Is there any evidence that the-thing-we-call-philosophy-today has actually contributed positively to those things? I've seen it claimed that professional ethicists act less ethically in their daily lives than the average member of the public, and most ethics training classes seem at best useless.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        There is no evidence. The thing we (non-philosophers) call philosophy today is like the thing we call pure mathematics today: it's the philosophy that hasn't been useful, and therefore hasn't been moved into another field like epistemology or philosophy-of-science or probability theory.
voidhorse 5y ago
I think there’s an inherent tension between what philosophers are trying to do and what practitioners in specific fields are trying to do that leads to the bad blood. If you’re a philosopher, you’re generally trying to look at things from a general enough perspective that you might argue for a radical shift in the way we do things and call out the assumptions that are otherwise taken as axioms of the field—the water we swim around in. If you’re a practitioner, you’re focused on swimming. Core axioms and prevailing theory are your presuppositions—you’re just focused on getting things done within the confines of the prevailing theory/framework, perhaps nudging it every so often in particular directions based on new discoveries—its quite rare that a working scientist sparks an actual theoretic revision and becomes the next Einstein (see thomas Kuhn). So yes, philosophers are totally useless when it comes to getting practical stuff done because that’s generally not the space they are attempting to help with or illuminate.
- btilly 5y ago
  That isn't the problem. The problem is that philosophers believe that they know things from first principles which, in fact, have been falsified by science. Therefore the thing that they are saying is wrong. See https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helped-ensure-there-was-no-nobel-for-relativity https://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/this-philosopher-helpe... for a famous such clash. Please be assured that legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap.
  - morelisp 5y ago
    > legions of lesser philosophers have fallen into the same trap. I don't know, this case is somewhat infamous, but it really speaks more to the Nobel committee's own biases than the field of philosophy. Bergson was prolific and influential, but also unpopular within many philosophical circles outside of the Francosphere, and also inside it by the time the post-structuralists came along. Anyway, wait until you find out what the legions of lesser scientists have been up to since 1921...