10 ms·

Is there a good reason to think this is not either a curious outlier or strawman? Is that situation alone actually good reason to demand people "stick to the li

Is there a good reason to think this is not either a curious outlier or strawman? Is that situation alone actually good reason to demand people "stick to the liberal arts"? Or is there something else here among your reasoning? For the record, I have a degree in CS and Philosophy, so its awfully tough to "stick to the liberal arts".

cperciva 14y ago
That was the most blatant example, but I see members of the university Senate voting for what they "know" over what they have evidence for on a regular basis. (And the philosophers aren't the problem... although that might be partly because our philosophy department is quite strong on logic.)
- Vargas 14y ago
  I see most people in our democracy voting for what they "know" over what they have evidence for.
  - cperciva 14y ago
    Of course, but it would be nice to think that university professors are more intelligent than the general population.
    - slurgfest 14y ago
      Better-read with good probability, better-educated with good probability. But no specific reason for them to be more intelligent, because there is no process to make that especially likely. It is a job one gets by deciding to do it, sticking to it, paying one's dues over a long period, cultivating connections, building a personal brand. Like so many other jobs... Professors should be respected in direct proportion to their actually demonstrated knowledge, and only in the fields where that knowledge has been demonstrated... other than this we should not respect them more than teachers of high school or elementary school, who usually have greater expertise and dedication in teaching.
- philwelch 14y ago
  Many English-speaking philosophy departments are, largely because Bertrand Russell got tired of this shit 100 years ago: "Hitherto the people attracted to philosophy have been mostly those who loved the big generalizations, which were all wrong, so that few people with exact minds have taken up the subject."
- spindritf 14y ago
  "Philosophers are the smartest humanists" http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mathematical-aptitude-in-academics/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mat...
ElliotMingee 14y ago
Not to derail the thread here, but I'm genuinely curious: what prompted you to pick up degrees in both CS and philosophy? I know pg is in a similar boat, however I didn't meet anyone in undergraduate or graduate school pursuing that path. Given how important reasoning is in both disciplines, I don't think it's an unnatural coupling; however, I'd be very interested to know if you felt they complemented each other.
- simonsarris 14y ago
  Sorry for the incoming long-windedness. I've never articulated this so I'm not sure what to say. Freshman year I came in as Computer Science and took a class called Minds and Machines that was a sort of intro to philosophy and cognitive science (two years later, the school got their Cognitive Science degree approved/accredited and the Minds and Machines program because the Cognitive Science program) I love Computer Science but I really love writing and ethics[1]. I love communication and the art (and science) of effectively conveying ideas. I'd probably love advertising, to be honest. I love all majors and subjects though so maybe that's not accurate enough. Anyway I went into college wanting to do science, and I picked Computer Science because it had the lowest do-your-own-thing cost. If a Biologist or Engineer wants to do his own thing he may need a lab or machining equipment. Prices for that stuff has really come down in the last 50 years but its nowhere near CS. All you need is a computer. I loved the idea that my only restriction to making things was time. It was the people's major! (cue communist imagery) I had no idea about this whole world of humanities until I took that first class. The teacher was also my advisor-to-be if I dual majored and the logic part of the Phil curriculum had its own appeal. So many more opportunities to write papers than my CS classes! If I had to do college all over again I'd probably try to do English/Philosophy/CS, with perhaps CS as the minor. I have enormous respect for liberal arts majors, but more-so than other majors, and I think this is very important, the value of humanities degrees are very much what you put into them. It didn't seem hard in my school at least to get a Phil/Communications/English degree compared to a STEM degree, but that in itself only meant that what you got out of a humanities degree it was what you put in. I definitely found myself finding humanities majors far, far more socially capable than the engineer majors, almost to an embarassing degree.[2] Anyway I do think the two majors compliment each other. It seems only natural, especially with the intersection of Logic. But I also think it compliments CS because I think the largest deficiency in every other CS and engineering grad I've met is that they have a hard time communicating their ideas and debating others effectively. Philosophy helps with that. A lot, in my opinion. [1] in the Aristotelian/Kant/Mill/Humanity's greater good/etc sense of the word, not the vague-ideas-gotten-by-parents-and-peers sense which is usually picked up on (see for instance almost the entire abortion debate) [2] I'm quite the introvert and it took me a long time to overcome the social interaction thing that seemed to plague so many of my peers in college. I was supremely shy as a kid and generally liked to hide behind my mom whenever we went somewhere. My 8th grade class was just 21 people (two groups of 10 and 11), and my high school was just 500-600 people. I was unused to, well, interaction. In my freshman year of college it hit me. My college (RPI) was known for being an introverted place and I met so many great people who almost literally never left their rooms. Great minds and personalities who were self-sequestered from the world. It felt tragic sometimes. I met and found a lot of people wanted to meet people but had a great fear of simply being in public spaces more and exchanging pleasantries. Others still, and this was not an uncommon opinion, would disparage the idea of small talk as useless. It's funny but, of all places, once I came to college and met enough varied and amazing people I became vastly, vastly less shy. It just wasn't worth it to be shy when there were so many great people to meet.
saulrh 14y ago
It seems to me like a reasonable generalization of the part where experts don't talk authoritatively about things outside their fields. You have degrees in CS and Philosophy, but I doubt you'd write about as related to your field as CPU manufacture, much less completely unrelated fields like aircraft design or particle physics. Staying out of shakespeare, political science, art history, and archaeology is just a broader extension of the same principle. In the reverse direction, if you know nothing about statistics, using statistics in your reasoning is probably a bad idea, and if someone brings in statistics you should pull in someone that knows how to do statistics so you're not making a decision that you don't understand. "Staying out of things you're not qualified to talk about" could prevent a lot of problems.

cperciva 14y ago

That was the most blatant example, but I see members of the university Senate voting for what they "know" over what they have evidence for on a regular basis. (And the philosophers aren't the problem... although that might be partly because our philosophy department is quite strong on logic.)

Vargas 14y ago
I see most people in our democracy voting for what they "know" over what they have evidence for.
- cperciva 14y ago
  Of course, but it would be nice to think that university professors are more intelligent than the general population.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    Better-read with good probability, better-educated with good probability. But no specific reason for them to be more intelligent, because there is no process to make that especially likely. It is a job one gets by deciding to do it, sticking to it, paying one's dues over a long period, cultivating connections, building a personal brand. Like so many other jobs... Professors should be respected in direct proportion to their actually demonstrated knowledge, and only in the fields where that knowledge has been demonstrated... other than this we should not respect them more than teachers of high school or elementary school, who usually have greater expertise and dedication in teaching.
philwelch 14y ago
Many English-speaking philosophy departments are, largely because Bertrand Russell got tired of this shit 100 years ago: "Hitherto the people attracted to philosophy have been mostly those who loved the big generalizations, which were all wrong, so that few people with exact minds have taken up the subject."
spindritf 14y ago
"Philosophers are the smartest humanists" http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mathematical-aptitude-in-academics/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/12/verbal-vs-mat...

ElliotMingee 14y ago

Not to derail the thread here, but I'm genuinely curious: what prompted you to pick up degrees in both CS and philosophy? I know pg is in a similar boat, however I didn't meet anyone in undergraduate or graduate school pursuing that path. Given how important reasoning is in both disciplines, I don't think it's an unnatural coupling; however, I'd be very interested to know if you felt they complemented each other.

simonsarris 14y ago
Sorry for the incoming long-windedness. I've never articulated this so I'm not sure what to say. Freshman year I came in as Computer Science and took a class called Minds and Machines that was a sort of intro to philosophy and cognitive science (two years later, the school got their Cognitive Science degree approved/accredited and the Minds and Machines program because the Cognitive Science program) I love Computer Science but I really love writing and ethics[1]. I love communication and the art (and science) of effectively conveying ideas. I'd probably love advertising, to be honest. I love all majors and subjects though so maybe that's not accurate enough. Anyway I went into college wanting to do science, and I picked Computer Science because it had the lowest do-your-own-thing cost. If a Biologist or Engineer wants to do his own thing he may need a lab or machining equipment. Prices for that stuff has really come down in the last 50 years but its nowhere near CS. All you need is a computer. I loved the idea that my only restriction to making things was time. It was the people's major! (cue communist imagery) I had no idea about this whole world of humanities until I took that first class. The teacher was also my advisor-to-be if I dual majored and the logic part of the Phil curriculum had its own appeal. So many more opportunities to write papers than my CS classes! If I had to do college all over again I'd probably try to do English/Philosophy/CS, with perhaps CS as the minor. I have enormous respect for liberal arts majors, but more-so than other majors, and I think this is very important, the value of humanities degrees are very much what you put into them. It didn't seem hard in my school at least to get a Phil/Communications/English degree compared to a STEM degree, but that in itself only meant that what you got out of a humanities degree it was what you put in. I definitely found myself finding humanities majors far, far more socially capable than the engineer majors, almost to an embarassing degree.[2] Anyway I do think the two majors compliment each other. It seems only natural, especially with the intersection of Logic. But I also think it compliments CS because I think the largest deficiency in every other CS and engineering grad I've met is that they have a hard time communicating their ideas and debating others effectively. Philosophy helps with that. A lot, in my opinion. [1] in the Aristotelian/Kant/Mill/Humanity's greater good/etc sense of the word, not the vague-ideas-gotten-by-parents-and-peers sense which is usually picked up on (see for instance almost the entire abortion debate) [2] I'm quite the introvert and it took me a long time to overcome the social interaction thing that seemed to plague so many of my peers in college. I was supremely shy as a kid and generally liked to hide behind my mom whenever we went somewhere. My 8th grade class was just 21 people (two groups of 10 and 11), and my high school was just 500-600 people. I was unused to, well, interaction. In my freshman year of college it hit me. My college (RPI) was known for being an introverted place and I met so many great people who almost literally never left their rooms. Great minds and personalities who were self-sequestered from the world. It felt tragic sometimes. I met and found a lot of people wanted to meet people but had a great fear of simply being in public spaces more and exchanging pleasantries. Others still, and this was not an uncommon opinion, would disparage the idea of small talk as useless. It's funny but, of all places, once I came to college and met enough varied and amazing people I became vastly, vastly less shy. It just wasn't worth it to be shy when there were so many great people to meet.

saulrh 14y ago

It seems to me like a reasonable generalization of the part where experts don't talk authoritatively about things outside their fields. You have degrees in CS and Philosophy, but I doubt you'd write about as related to your field as CPU manufacture, much less completely unrelated fields like aircraft design or particle physics. Staying out of shakespeare, political science, art history, and archaeology is just a broader extension of the same principle. In the reverse direction, if you know nothing about statistics, using statistics in your reasoning is probably a bad idea, and if someone brings in statistics you should pull in someone that knows how to do statistics so you're not making a decision that you don't understand. "Staying out of things you're not qualified to talk about" could prevent a lot of problems.