5 ms·
> People more qualified than a philosopher have argued many perspectives about DID diagnosis. Idk why you'd think a medical practitioner would be more qualifie
by pxc 2y ago
> People more qualified than a philosopher have argued many perspectives about DID diagnosis.
Idk why you'd think a medical practitioner would be more qualified than a philosopher of science about when it comes to methodological issues, but you're wrong.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoPerhaps because without having their theories reality-checked on a regular basis, a philosopher of science effectively turns into a protein-based LLM: saying convincing things, but unable to realize when some of it is wrong and invalidates everything said from that point on. Medical practitioners live and breathe methodology; they experience both the process and its output. They are the reality test.
- AndrewKemendo 2y agoI also have an extreme bias towards practitioners in terms of any practice being the exegesis of whatever the embedded epistemology is. However, I believe you’re over indexing on this in that across pretty much every industry that I’ve ever dealt with, practitioners are notoriously terrible at implementing anything close to theoretical optimization Why? simply because the organization does not incentivize that, so if we were then to use this as our standard, then we would be betraying what is effectively the idealized implementation of some epistemological process instead you’re simply lowering the bar on what is a more correct way to do things I think this is one of the few places where from a philosophical perspective The categorical imperative is actually very helpful - that is to say a medical professionals epistemology should be the highest standard and all other standards of rationality or let’s say decision-making should strive for In short, much like practitioners need to keep the philosophers grounded , philosophers need to keep practitioners from lowering the bar on the epistemological robustness
- snapcaster 2y agoI think the scoreboard indicates differently. I've never once come across a meaningful problem outside of philosophy addressed or solved by a philosopher
- cd4plus 2y agoYou haven't looked very hard then
- TeMPOraL 2y agoOkay, name three examples then. Bonus points if they happen to be pure philosophers, not philosopher-practitioners.
- cd4plus 2y agoAre you not a practitioner if you contribute to the field...? Seems impossible to meet your criteria. What's a pure philosopher? Are Frege and Decartes not philosophers because they also did math? Does Alan Turing count? What about Popper and Kuhn? Are they philosophy enough for the philosopher club? Where, when, how and by whom do you think the concept of 'empirical science' was derived? To be clear, everyone, including scientists, do philosophy every single day. You don't think Darwin did some philosophy in on the origin of species?
- alan-hn 2y agoSure you can argue about the specificity of the question but do you have any examples of pure philosophers?