6 ms·
> What kinds of papers made silly errors like that? Do you have any examples? Good heavens, where to begin? Just about anything about natural language that ca
by lisper 3y ago
> What kinds of papers made silly errors like that? Do you have any examples?
Good heavens, where to begin? Just about anything about natural language that came out of a philosophy department in the mid-80s. For that matter, a lot of what came out of CS departments in the mid-80s was bullshit too, but that's because people back then were basing their work on what turned out to be a false premise, that language and human reasoning could be effectively modeled by formal logic.
Two specific examples stick out in my memory as things that struck me as BS back in the day:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780934613033500337 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97809...
https://www.amazon.com/Situations-Attitudes-Jon-Barwise/dp/1575861933 https://www.amazon.com/Situations-Attitudes-Jon-Barwise/dp/1...
The second example is a whole book pointing out that the meaning of a sentence depends on the context in which it appears. Well, duh!
> Most philosophers in the west are atheist, unless you mean they're secretly theist? What kind of undercover religious apologetics do you think is going on? I'm curious what you mean.
One of my hobbies is studying points of view with which I radically disagree, so I've spent a fair bit of time talking to religious fundamentalists and young-earth creationists. A lot of their foundational rhetoric is philosophical. It's actually pretty impressive how much thought they've put into it. These people are wrong (IMHO obviously), but they're not stupid.
- knightoffaith 3y agoThanks for the links! On religious apologetics, that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it? I imagine fundamentalists are only using a small sliver of philosophical arguments. Most philosophers today don't think they're providing cover for apologetics, anyway.
- lisper 3y ago> that fundamentalists use philosophical arguments to justify their positions doesn't mean philosophy is largely transparent cover for religious apologetics, does it? Not in and of itself. But I don't see many other applications. Do you?
- knightoffaith 3y agoLiterally every philosophical stance compatible with atheism, no? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying.
- lisper 3y agoPhilosophy finds application as cover for religious apologetics to make it seem more intellectually respectable than it otherwise might. I don't see many other areas where philosophy has an impact outside academia.
- knightoffaith 3y agoIt finds application for atheists making arguments against religion as well. It finds application in defenses of free will. Scientists seem to subscribe to a Popperian falsifiability. Logic, part of philosophy, has found widespread use, as I'm sure you know.
- lisper 3y agoI would argue that logic is more math than philosophy. I'll grant you Popper. But he's the exception (along with Dennett and Maudlin) not the rule.
- knightoffaith 3y agoI mean, I think philosophers defending religious fundamentalism are also exceptions rather than the rule.
- lisper 3y agoYes, I agree. I think most philosophers are just gazing at their navels.
- 3y ago