3 ms·

In the few contact I've had with philosophers, I've got the (maybe wrong and oversimplified, but nonetheless evident) impression that they find philosophy fun a

In the few contact I've had with philosophers, I've got the (maybe wrong and oversimplified, but nonetheless evident) impression that they find philosophy fun and mentally stimulating, and they enjoy academically talking and writing about edge cases no matter their feasibility. I think it's a net good when philosophers mentally explore scenarios most people don't consider, regardless of their plausibility, but they will not be taken more seriously that Peter Watts looking for inspiration for his next scifi book unless they offer some kind of evidence to sustain their conclusions. The handful of philosophers I've known are very smart, interesting people, but except for one who teaches philosophy, they don't live off philosophy. Most have a side job, and one lives with his parents. It's as if philosophy was more of a mentally rewarding hobby than a job.

tuatoru 5y ago
Mentally rewarding hobbies can be fruitful, though. Consider the case of Oliver Heaviside, the person who came up with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism in the form that we use today, as well as several other useful things. I have no doubt that he was thought a crank by many, nor that many other actual cranks were claiming discoveries based on Maxwell's work. One can only tell the difference in the rear-view mirror. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
- marvin 5y ago
  Why do people have to use the derogatory word «crank»? It’s perfectly possible to just be smart, sincere and wrong. Talking about paradigm shifts again, not a single one of them matched the consensus at the time. Isaac Newton spent a lot of time thinking about alchemy and religion, for heaven’s sake. During his lifetime, it wasn’t obvious even to the smartest thinkers whether science, the Bible or quasi-religious rituals was the best tool for understanding the world. Conventional thinkers expect that the future will look like what they know, and it leads to frequent, overconfident dismissal of everything that is unconventional. By all means, disagree and explore in your own direction. But don’t go around degrading those you disagree with. It’s just so average.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > Why do people have to use the derogatory word «crank»? The word "crank" has the connotation of someone self-deluded, aggressively promoting their beliefs and reacting badly to critique, and who decides for some reason to ignore the normal channels of peer-reviews, academia, and scientific research. You can be wrong, and then you can be wrong and also lack formal education, forgo presenting your findings in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant area of your research, and decide that instead of joining the mainstream, you can completely sidestep it by creating your own "research institute" (of which you are of course a "fellow", because why not). Your findings and papers can then be self-published on the internet, bypassing any quality controls. Bonus point if your theories paint a fringe doomsday picture, "Roko's Basilisk is out to get you", "the most important existential threat to humanity is malign AI", etc. About the only item in the crackpot index that Yudkowsky doesn't tick is the "they are trying to suppress my truth!", to his credit. Each of those can be of little importance, but all taken together paint a pretty definitive picture.
    - marvin 5y ago
      I really don't understand the hate. Honestly. This isn't merely disagreement.
- ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > Mentally rewarding hobbies can be fruitful Unreservedly agree. Even if they're not as fruitful as Oliver Heaviside's effort, a mentally rewarding hobby is ultimately your business, and as long as you don't harm others, no one has grounds to judge you. If Oliver Heaviside had started giving conferences warning that Maxwell's equations demonstrate FTL communication is possible, which could trigger a paradox that collapses reality, he wouldn't have such a good view in the rear-view mirror unless he offered some kind of evidence. Maybe Oliver would have been right, maybe not, it would be impossible to judge without concrete evidence.

tuatoru 5y ago

Mentally rewarding hobbies can be fruitful, though. Consider the case of Oliver Heaviside, the person who came up with Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism in the form that we use today, as well as several other useful things. I have no doubt that he was thought a crank by many, nor that many other actual cranks were claiming discoveries based on Maxwell's work. One can only tell the difference in the rear-view mirror. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside

marvin 5y ago
Why do people have to use the derogatory word «crank»? It’s perfectly possible to just be smart, sincere and wrong. Talking about paradigm shifts again, not a single one of them matched the consensus at the time. Isaac Newton spent a lot of time thinking about alchemy and religion, for heaven’s sake. During his lifetime, it wasn’t obvious even to the smartest thinkers whether science, the Bible or quasi-religious rituals was the best tool for understanding the world. Conventional thinkers expect that the future will look like what they know, and it leads to frequent, overconfident dismissal of everything that is unconventional. By all means, disagree and explore in your own direction. But don’t go around degrading those you disagree with. It’s just so average.
- the_af 5y ago
  > Why do people have to use the derogatory word «crank»? The word "crank" has the connotation of someone self-deluded, aggressively promoting their beliefs and reacting badly to critique, and who decides for some reason to ignore the normal channels of peer-reviews, academia, and scientific research. You can be wrong, and then you can be wrong and also lack formal education, forgo presenting your findings in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant area of your research, and decide that instead of joining the mainstream, you can completely sidestep it by creating your own "research institute" (of which you are of course a "fellow", because why not). Your findings and papers can then be self-published on the internet, bypassing any quality controls. Bonus point if your theories paint a fringe doomsday picture, "Roko's Basilisk is out to get you", "the most important existential threat to humanity is malign AI", etc. About the only item in the crackpot index that Yudkowsky doesn't tick is the "they are trying to suppress my truth!", to his credit. Each of those can be of little importance, but all taken together paint a pretty definitive picture.
  - marvin 5y ago
    I really don't understand the hate. Honestly. This isn't merely disagreement.
ASalazarMX 5y ago
> Mentally rewarding hobbies can be fruitful Unreservedly agree. Even if they're not as fruitful as Oliver Heaviside's effort, a mentally rewarding hobby is ultimately your business, and as long as you don't harm others, no one has grounds to judge you. If Oliver Heaviside had started giving conferences warning that Maxwell's equations demonstrate FTL communication is possible, which could trigger a paradox that collapses reality, he wouldn't have such a good view in the rear-view mirror unless he offered some kind of evidence. Maybe Oliver would have been right, maybe not, it would be impossible to judge without concrete evidence.