8 ms·

Not really sure a guy whose exposure to "philosophy" apparently consists of awareness of a single writer is prepared to weigh in on the legitimacy of a field as

Not really sure a guy whose exposure to "philosophy" apparently consists of awareness of a single writer is prepared to weigh in on the legitimacy of a field as old as civilization. But admittedly I haven't done a RCT to confirm this.

derleth 14y ago
This sounds like the Courtier's Reply. How is it different from it? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
- _delirium 14y ago
  Can we have a variation that is something like: you have read even a modest amount on it? I'm not a philosopher, and my philosophical knowledge amounts to having taken 3 courses in undergrad (as electives while getting a CS degree), one in grad school (same), and reading a scattered set of books and blogs that interest me. I wouldn't consider myself qualified to opine on Philosophy In General. Yet, this blog post seems to be by someone who knows less about philosophy than I do, yet is more confident in his opinion to give a sweeping judgment of it. That's sort of impressive, but doesn't give me a lot of confidence that I'm receiving well-informed opinions. Actually, that seems like a logical critique in any field. If someone who clearly had read only a handful of things about quantum physics holds forth on why quantum physics is bullshit, it would be a good heuristic to assume that they probably don't know enough to make that judgment, and maybe they should learn some quantum physics first.
- wpietri 14y ago
  If you're going to condemn a whole field, I think you have to be able to demonstrate that you have a reasonably broad understanding of the field. If somebody says they hate vegetables but their experience is limited to one attempt to eat creamed spinach in 1985, it's not a fallacy to say they don't know what they're talking about.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    I know where you are going, but your example isn't particularly useful. If someone says that they hate vegetables, then they hate vegetables, regardless of whether their vegetable-eating experience is limited.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      Not quite. They hate their idea of vegetables. They don't have any idea whether they actually hate actually eating actual vegetables, because they've never really done it. Similarly, this guy is welcome to hate his impoverished notion of philosophy, but it shouldn't be mistaken for somebody actually hating philosophy.
      - chris_wot 14y ago
        Hate is a subjective term and describes a feeling, not an objective fact. You are correct in that the author is wrong in that scientists should ignore philosophy based on his limited and ignorant article, but you are incorrect that his feelings towards philosophy is not one of hatred. Put it this way: I can hate that which I have never experienced. I've never been raped, but I definitely hate it!
        wpietri 14y ago
        The feeling is indeed subjective. I'm not denying the hatred. I'm saying that they misunderstand the object of their hatred, confusing their cartoon notion of vegetables with the actual world of experiences that you have eating vegetables. The may be speaking the truth when they say "I hate vegetables", but the implication that they won't like eating them doesn't logically follow because they don't actually know. Spend time around small children and you see this pattern all the time. "I hate it!" "You haven't tried it. Here, try this." "That's good! Can I have more?"
        chris_wot 14y ago
        I have two small children of my own, so I know the behaviour :-) None of what you say negates the fact that at the point in time that the child says that they hate the thing they hate, they really do. As I say, hatred is a subjective emotion not necessarily informed by objective reason.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  The argument is that science largely ignores philosophy. He almost solely quotes postmoderism for his argument (though he does mention Popper). Yet philosophy is so much large than just postmodernism. Ergo, solely judging philosophy from the tenants and postulations of postmodernism is not a sound argument.

derleth 14y ago

This sounds like the Courtier's Reply. How is it different from it? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply

_delirium 14y ago
Can we have a variation that is something like: you have read even a modest amount on it? I'm not a philosopher, and my philosophical knowledge amounts to having taken 3 courses in undergrad (as electives while getting a CS degree), one in grad school (same), and reading a scattered set of books and blogs that interest me. I wouldn't consider myself qualified to opine on Philosophy In General. Yet, this blog post seems to be by someone who knows less about philosophy than I do, yet is more confident in his opinion to give a sweeping judgment of it. That's sort of impressive, but doesn't give me a lot of confidence that I'm receiving well-informed opinions. Actually, that seems like a logical critique in any field. If someone who clearly had read only a handful of things about quantum physics holds forth on why quantum physics is bullshit, it would be a good heuristic to assume that they probably don't know enough to make that judgment, and maybe they should learn some quantum physics first.
wpietri 14y ago
If you're going to condemn a whole field, I think you have to be able to demonstrate that you have a reasonably broad understanding of the field. If somebody says they hate vegetables but their experience is limited to one attempt to eat creamed spinach in 1985, it's not a fallacy to say they don't know what they're talking about.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  I know where you are going, but your example isn't particularly useful. If someone says that they hate vegetables, then they hate vegetables, regardless of whether their vegetable-eating experience is limited.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    Not quite. They hate their idea of vegetables. They don't have any idea whether they actually hate actually eating actual vegetables, because they've never really done it. Similarly, this guy is welcome to hate his impoverished notion of philosophy, but it shouldn't be mistaken for somebody actually hating philosophy.
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Hate is a subjective term and describes a feeling, not an objective fact. You are correct in that the author is wrong in that scientists should ignore philosophy based on his limited and ignorant article, but you are incorrect that his feelings towards philosophy is not one of hatred. Put it this way: I can hate that which I have never experienced. I've never been raped, but I definitely hate it!
      - wpietri 14y ago
        The feeling is indeed subjective. I'm not denying the hatred. I'm saying that they misunderstand the object of their hatred, confusing their cartoon notion of vegetables with the actual world of experiences that you have eating vegetables. The may be speaking the truth when they say "I hate vegetables", but the implication that they won't like eating them doesn't logically follow because they don't actually know. Spend time around small children and you see this pattern all the time. "I hate it!" "You haven't tried it. Here, try this." "That's good! Can I have more?"
        chris_wot 14y ago
        I have two small children of my own, so I know the behaviour :-) None of what you say negates the fact that at the point in time that the child says that they hate the thing they hate, they really do. As I say, hatred is a subjective emotion not necessarily informed by objective reason.
chris_wot 14y ago
The argument is that science largely ignores philosophy. He almost solely quotes postmoderism for his argument (though he does mention Popper). Yet philosophy is so much large than just postmodernism. Ergo, solely judging philosophy from the tenants and postulations of postmodernism is not a sound argument.