4 ms·

It shows they have very poor peer review.

JohnFen 1y ago
I don't see how it shows that at all, but even if it does, I don't see how that counters what I said. Just because a person disagrees with one philosophical idea doesn't imply that all of philosophy is worthless.
- amichail 1y ago
  Compatibilism is not an obscure topic in philosophy. Its popularity reflects poorly on the field. If you read about it, you will notice they are redefining terms such as free will and moral responsibility to mean something else entirely. And in so doing, they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility.
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    Hmmm, I suspect that you and I may not agree as to what the purpose of philosophical studies is. It's a very different purpose than that of the sciences. I personally don't agree with most of what compatibalism posits, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with philosophy as a field of study. > they are trying to gaslight the general public Who is "they"? And I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the general public have never even heard of compatibilism, so are hardly being "gaslit" by it.
    - amichail 1y ago
      Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. Scientists should stop pretending that it does. Scientists who say they don't understand compatibilism should say what they really think about it (e.g., that it is nonsense or an attempt at gaslighting).
      - JohnFen 1y ago
        > Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. I have no idea what you mean by this. > Scientists should stop pretending that it does. Science and philosophy are two entirely different fields. Very few people are both. Whatever scientists think about philosophical topics carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks about philosophical topics.
        amichail 1y ago
        Maybe astrology should be an academic field also and scientists should not mock it?
  - beardyw 1y ago
    > And in so doing, they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility. Since moral responsibility does exist it is obviously "compatible" with determinism. Perhaps you meant free-will which I would agree is a chimera. [Though I would argue it is still compatible]
  - Ukv 1y ago
    > they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility To my understanding: 1. We have something that we've come to call moral responsibility. If I punch someone, I'm considered morally responsible for that action and may be punished for doing so. Seems to me a useful social construct to discourage behavior detrimental to a collaborative society 2. We have a world that is, to all evidence we've observed so far, consistent with both deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of physics. True that Copenhagen interpretation is the most prevalent and is non-deterministic - but I'd argue that's at least in part because it makes the math simpler opposed to physicists necessarily believing that a split between classical observers and quantum systems, with random collapses when the two interact, is actually how the universe works If tomorrow new experiments somehow validated Everett's interpretation, that the whole universe is just one big quantum system evolving according to the Schrödinger equation, would it mean we've been wrong this whole time to talk about our moral responsibility? Would we have to upend laws based on supposedly realizing that we don't actually have moral responsibility? Personally, I don't see why it should have any real bearing on the concept of moral responsibility - or really anything in day-to-day life (else our observations wouldn't have been consistent with both interpretations for so long).
    - amichail 1y ago
      If free will does not exist, then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense. They should be isolated from society and rehabilitated if possible — just like people found not liable due to mental illness.
      - Ukv 1y ago
        > then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense I think all that's needed for punishment to make sense is for that punishment to have a deterrence effect, reducing frequency of the targeted behavior. I'm not seeing why whether or not punishment makes sense would hinge on whether our universe turns out to be deterministic or to be non-deterministic.
        1y ago

I don't see how it shows that at all, but even if it does, I don't see how that counters what I said. Just because a person disagrees with one philosophical idea doesn't imply that all of philosophy is worthless.

amichail 1y ago
Compatibilism is not an obscure topic in philosophy. Its popularity reflects poorly on the field. If you read about it, you will notice they are redefining terms such as free will and moral responsibility to mean something else entirely. And in so doing, they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility.
- JohnFen 1y ago
  Hmmm, I suspect that you and I may not agree as to what the purpose of philosophical studies is. It's a very different purpose than that of the sciences. I personally don't agree with most of what compatibalism posits, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with philosophy as a field of study. > they are trying to gaslight the general public Who is "they"? And I'd venture to say that the vast majority of the general public have never even heard of compatibilism, so are hardly being "gaslit" by it.
  - amichail 1y ago
    Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. Scientists should stop pretending that it does. Scientists who say they don't understand compatibilism should say what they really think about it (e.g., that it is nonsense or an attempt at gaslighting).
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      > Philosophy does not have much utility nowadays. I have no idea what you mean by this. > Scientists should stop pretending that it does. Science and philosophy are two entirely different fields. Very few people are both. Whatever scientists think about philosophical topics carries no more weight than what anyone else thinks about philosophical topics.
      - amichail 1y ago
        Maybe astrology should be an academic field also and scientists should not mock it?
- beardyw 1y ago
  > And in so doing, they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility. Since moral responsibility does exist it is obviously "compatible" with determinism. Perhaps you meant free-will which I would agree is a chimera. [Though I would argue it is still compatible]
- Ukv 1y ago
  > they are trying to gaslight the general public into thinking that a deterministic world is compatible with moral responsibility To my understanding: 1. We have something that we've come to call moral responsibility. If I punch someone, I'm considered morally responsible for that action and may be punished for doing so. Seems to me a useful social construct to discourage behavior detrimental to a collaborative society 2. We have a world that is, to all evidence we've observed so far, consistent with both deterministic and non-deterministic interpretations of physics. True that Copenhagen interpretation is the most prevalent and is non-deterministic - but I'd argue that's at least in part because it makes the math simpler opposed to physicists necessarily believing that a split between classical observers and quantum systems, with random collapses when the two interact, is actually how the universe works If tomorrow new experiments somehow validated Everett's interpretation, that the whole universe is just one big quantum system evolving according to the Schrödinger equation, would it mean we've been wrong this whole time to talk about our moral responsibility? Would we have to upend laws based on supposedly realizing that we don't actually have moral responsibility? Personally, I don't see why it should have any real bearing on the concept of moral responsibility - or really anything in day-to-day life (else our observations wouldn't have been consistent with both interpretations for so long).
  - amichail 1y ago
    If free will does not exist, then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense. They should be isolated from society and rehabilitated if possible — just like people found not liable due to mental illness.
    - Ukv 1y ago
      > then punishing people for wrong doing doesn't make sense I think all that's needed for punishment to make sense is for that punishment to have a deterrence effect, reducing frequency of the targeted behavior. I'm not seeing why whether or not punishment makes sense would hinge on whether our universe turns out to be deterministic or to be non-deterministic.
      - 1y ago