8 ms·

> data is qualitative I always felt that just means it's poorly defined. If you can't precisely define what exactly it is you are arguing about and what are th

> data is qualitative I always felt that just means it's poorly defined. If you can't precisely define what exactly it is you are arguing about and what are the premises in play then we are just wasting everyone's time. > It takes a lot of reading and writing and thinking and arguing over the course of years to grok. But that's just learning the domain. I'm under the impression that humanities people claim that they can think in a different way that STEM people can't. Frankly, I feel almost everything can be processed via first order logic - I know there are some really niche things that can't.

argentier 4y ago
It is poorly defined: that is why it isn't maths, yet. What is the purpose of philosophy? In its most basic sense to teach one how to live a good life. Abstract concepts like justice, fairness, ideal social structures, social values flow from this basic question. Any precise definition of any of the above concepts is open to question, and societies and institutions to some extent embody sets of answers to them. The domain evolves over time, ideas change, pressures brought about by various outside phenomena change. After all, we are simply a collection of organisms evolving in an environment that we don't understand, according to rules we dimly discern. This is not to contribute to any STEM vs the humanities fight: it's fundamentally an arbitrary division of knowledge, and neither side benefits from the division. The STEM side is prone to a naive scientism and an amorality that is much to the detriment of the species. On the other hand, the humanities has unfortunately largely devolved into a sort of philosophical rag and bone yard. Frankly, both sides should get together and have sex for a while. Something might come out of it.
techno_tsar 4y ago
> always felt that just means it's poorly defined. No, it just means that it’s qualitative. Why would qualitative descriptions of entities mean it’s poorly defined? Take for example in philosophy of mind where qualitative descriptions of the colour red are more relevant to the discussion than quantitative descriptions of it, such as it’s frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum. In this example, having a qualitative description of the colour red, or a qualitative description of what qualia is (if it were to exist) is actually necessary in order to engage with the problem. > Frankly, I feel almost everything can be processed via first order logic - I know there are some really niche things that can't. What do you mean by processed? There’s a difference between whether propositions can be expressed in first order logic vs. whether the argumentation itself is derived from first order logic. People did not sit down with a table of axioms to figure out all of aerodynamics by decree. Like many fields of inquiry, it took deduction, induction, abduction, and the scientific method. Writing things down via first order logic came after. Your average philosophy graduate student is comfortable expressing virtually any proposition in first order logic, or even other types of symbolic logic. But I can assure you that modal arguments regarding, say, philosophy of mind, are conceived and argued in prose, with symbolic modal logic being used to aid the reader. What does that tell you about “processing via first order logic”?
- worrycue 4y ago
  > Take for example in philosophy of mind where qualitative descriptions of the colour red are more relevant to the discussion than quantitative descriptions of it, such as it’s frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum. How is it more relevant? Is there some property of the color red that physics doesn't cover? > Your average philosophy graduate student is comfortable expressing virtually any proposition in first order logic, or even other types of symbolic logic. So can mathematicians and most engineers. So we are on the same level. So what is it that students of humanities supposedly can do that STEM can't?
  - flippinburgers 4y ago
    They can make fluffy, borderline poetic phrases like "qualitative descriptions of the color red" that, frankly, mean nothing. Emotional sure, but the actual quality of a color is its wavelength for instance.
qwytw 4y ago
> If you can't precisely define what exactly Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone? In economics for instance if you try to achieve this you can often end with an oversimplified model which mostly pointless and not particularly useful unless you're writing a schoolbook for undergraduates. In a way it might be closer to medicine than to more exact sciences (just with no way to directly test your hypothesis...). You're analyzing a very complex dynamic system with many unknown or not easily definable or measurable variables. Even if you manage to come up with a model which makes sense it might be suddenly become nearly useless when something unpredicted in that system changes. > that they can think in a different way that STEM people can't Maybe they can and maybe they can't, I guess that depends on the individual. But you ussually do need to think in certain ways which are likely to not be very familiar to some people whose only background is in exact sciences.
- worrycue 4y ago
  > Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone? Don't see why we can't have multiple mutually exclusive definitions, as long as they are clearly defined, then we can have different lines of argument - kind of like with geometry and the parallel postulate; and which one reality matches is a separate issue we can independently investigate. > Maybe they can and maybe they can't, I guess that depends on the individual. But you ussually do need to think in certain ways which are likely to not be very familiar to some people whose only background is in exact sciences. I'm curious as to exactly how the thinking is different. An example would be nice.

argentier 4y ago

It is poorly defined: that is why it isn't maths, yet. What is the purpose of philosophy? In its most basic sense to teach one how to live a good life. Abstract concepts like justice, fairness, ideal social structures, social values flow from this basic question. Any precise definition of any of the above concepts is open to question, and societies and institutions to some extent embody sets of answers to them. The domain evolves over time, ideas change, pressures brought about by various outside phenomena change. After all, we are simply a collection of organisms evolving in an environment that we don't understand, according to rules we dimly discern. This is not to contribute to any STEM vs the humanities fight: it's fundamentally an arbitrary division of knowledge, and neither side benefits from the division. The STEM side is prone to a naive scientism and an amorality that is much to the detriment of the species. On the other hand, the humanities has unfortunately largely devolved into a sort of philosophical rag and bone yard. Frankly, both sides should get together and have sex for a while. Something might come out of it.

techno_tsar 4y ago

> always felt that just means it's poorly defined. No, it just means that it’s qualitative. Why would qualitative descriptions of entities mean it’s poorly defined? Take for example in philosophy of mind where qualitative descriptions of the colour red are more relevant to the discussion than quantitative descriptions of it, such as it’s frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum. In this example, having a qualitative description of the colour red, or a qualitative description of what qualia is (if it were to exist) is actually necessary in order to engage with the problem. > Frankly, I feel almost everything can be processed via first order logic - I know there are some really niche things that can't. What do you mean by processed? There’s a difference between whether propositions can be expressed in first order logic vs. whether the argumentation itself is derived from first order logic. People did not sit down with a table of axioms to figure out all of aerodynamics by decree. Like many fields of inquiry, it took deduction, induction, abduction, and the scientific method. Writing things down via first order logic came after. Your average philosophy graduate student is comfortable expressing virtually any proposition in first order logic, or even other types of symbolic logic. But I can assure you that modal arguments regarding, say, philosophy of mind, are conceived and argued in prose, with symbolic modal logic being used to aid the reader. What does that tell you about “processing via first order logic”?

worrycue 4y ago
> Take for example in philosophy of mind where qualitative descriptions of the colour red are more relevant to the discussion than quantitative descriptions of it, such as it’s frequency on the electromagnetic spectrum. How is it more relevant? Is there some property of the color red that physics doesn't cover? > Your average philosophy graduate student is comfortable expressing virtually any proposition in first order logic, or even other types of symbolic logic. So can mathematicians and most engineers. So we are on the same level. So what is it that students of humanities supposedly can do that STEM can't?
- flippinburgers 4y ago
  They can make fluffy, borderline poetic phrases like "qualitative descriptions of the color red" that, frankly, mean nothing. Emotional sure, but the actual quality of a color is its wavelength for instance.

qwytw 4y ago

> If you can't precisely define what exactly Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone? In economics for instance if you try to achieve this you can often end with an oversimplified model which mostly pointless and not particularly useful unless you're writing a schoolbook for undergraduates. In a way it might be closer to medicine than to more exact sciences (just with no way to directly test your hypothesis...). You're analyzing a very complex dynamic system with many unknown or not easily definable or measurable variables. Even if you manage to come up with a model which makes sense it might be suddenly become nearly useless when something unpredicted in that system changes. > that they can think in a different way that STEM people can't Maybe they can and maybe they can't, I guess that depends on the individual. But you ussually do need to think in certain ways which are likely to not be very familiar to some people whose only background is in exact sciences.

worrycue 4y ago
> Or if no one can define or agree on the definition those subjects should just be ignored by everyone? Don't see why we can't have multiple mutually exclusive definitions, as long as they are clearly defined, then we can have different lines of argument - kind of like with geometry and the parallel postulate; and which one reality matches is a separate issue we can independently investigate. > Maybe they can and maybe they can't, I guess that depends on the individual. But you ussually do need to think in certain ways which are likely to not be very familiar to some people whose only background is in exact sciences. I'm curious as to exactly how the thinking is different. An example would be nice.