3 ms·
True, it's basically indisputable that engineers are better at engineering than philosophers are. But that seems orthogonal to the issues raised in the problem
by knightoffaith 2y ago
True, it's basically indisputable that engineers are better at engineering than philosophers are. But that seems orthogonal to the issues raised in the problem of induction.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoMy thrust was more that people are out doing stuff in the world, and for the most part philosophers don't do anything other than say things about what people are already doing. Engineering was an empirical science long before it was a deductive and analytic one.
- knightoffaith 2y agoPhilosophers make arguments for/against claims, I don't see why that doesn't count as doing something. I mean, maybe you're complaining that they're not building rockets or feeding the poor, but philosophers are far from the only ones who don't do these things.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoMaking arguments for/against claims can be a noble pursuit, and mathematicians have done it to great benefit for humanity. I suspect the sum total of the benefit from philosophers' claims is much lower.
- knightoffaith 2y agoMaybe so, but I don't see why every discipline needs to be evaluated purely on "benefit for humanity" in the sense of scientific or technological progress, if that's what you're implying. There's more to humanity than just scientific/technological progress.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoI mean, people love musicians for making interesting "what if" statements to music, and I'm not shitting on that. The difference is that music makes people happy and makes the time go faster, while most philosophy makes people confused for no good reason, is boring and even when "understood" doesn't provide any tangible benefit to people's lives. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good "philosophy" out there, but it absolutely doesn't need to be its own academic discipline, it could just be a genre of nonfiction - "fun thought experiments taht will blow your mind"
- knightoffaith 2y ago>philosophy makes people confused for no good reason, is boring and even when "understood" doesn't provide any tangible benefit to people's lives. I mean, maybe this is true for some people, but there are a lot of people who don't get confused and who find it interesting and enjoyable. >Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of good "philosophy" out there, but it absolutely doesn't need to be its own academic discipline, it could just be a genre of nonfiction - "fun thought experiments taht will blow your mind" Philosophers are particularly interested in reasoning about whether certain claims are true or false though, not just saying "what if". I mean, if you want the literature and philosophy departments to nominally merge together and for philosophers to continue doing what they're doing, that's fine I suppose, though there are institutional reasons why that's probably not going to happen.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoExcept that there are practically journals just for arguing about what one particular german guy who has been dead for 150 years meant when he said a thing. That is not a sign of clear writing.
- knightoffaith 2y agoI'm not sure how that contradicts what I've said or why this means we should abolish philosophy departments. And for what it's worth, philosophy today tends to be clearer (to us at least), e.g. Dennett's work.
- harwoodjp 2y agoI don’t think you understand what philosophy is.
- CuriouslyC 2y agoI do. The sad leftovers after everyone else got to pick the good bits. Once a noble pursuit before things diverged into actual fields.