4 ms·

Wow. What's with the intense elitism here? Have you taken a philosophy course before? The article was clearly arguing in favor of the general public learning t

Wow. What's with the intense elitism here? Have you taken a philosophy course before? The article was clearly arguing in favor of the general public learning to think critically. I'm not sure what your agenda is for completely dismissing that, but it seems you're harboring some misconceptions about philosophy. I mean, where do you think the concepts of logical fallacies and the scientific method were born? I highly recommend you read the works of Karl Popper (the father of the idea that scientific theories have to be falsifiable) if you really want to learn about the importance of philosophy in the sciences. Not to mention the equal importance of social sciences (that Popper himself defends), albeit their limited ability to define scientific theories (as Popper defined them). Bacon and Kant might be useful prerequisite reading as well if you really care to understand the context and importance of these epistemological advances. But to dismiss the entire field with snark (like it is so commonly done on HN) is just in bad taste and exhibits exactly the lack in critical thinking that this article was taking about.

lutusp 13y ago
> What's with the intense elitism here? Have you taken a philosophy course before? First response: Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are qualified to criticize the field? If so, will the real elitist please stand up? Second response: To serve on a jury in a murder trial, do I have to be a murderer? No, I only need to be able to evaluate evidence. It's the same here. I find it amazing that you were unable to anticipate this obvious reply, given your attachment to philosophy and the critical-thinking skills it imparts. > The article was clearly arguing in favor of the general public learning to think critically. But that's not philosophy's goal, that's science's goal. It was philosophy's goal until about 1800 (when scientists were known as "natural philosophers"), but since then a historic split has separated those who favor argument from those who favor evidence. > But to dismiss the entire field with snark (like it is so commonly done on HN) is just in bad taste and exhibits exactly the lack in critical thinking that this article was taking about. It is critical thinking, aptly applied, that correctly identifies philosophy as a field predisposed to resolve issues with rhetoric rather than evidence. Were this not the case, if philosophy really were the paragon of critical-thinking virtue you claim, it wouldn't exist separate from science, because science already does that.
- aschampion 13y ago
  Science has nothing to do with critical thinking, science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. Why and how prediction and explanation of phenomena constitute good critical thinking is epistemology, a philosophical concern. Evidence abounds in modern philosophy, although what counts as evidence and how evidence should operate in arguments is an open question -- which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Science has nothing to do with critical thinking ... And I should take a philosophy course to be qualified to comment on philosophy? Science has everything to do with critical thinking. Without the scientific tradition of critical thinking, Bigfoot and the Loch News monster must exist on the ground they haven't been proven not to exist. > ... science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science. > ... which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. The only reason philosophers (and others) live beyond the age of 40 is the naive empiricism we see all around us. As to philosophical arguments holding primacy over others, this hasn't been true for over 100 years, since the day when science combined critical thinking with reality-testing. Philosophers don't reality-test, and they don't have a reliable basis for falsifying theories. The proof is that deconstructive post-modernism is alive and well among philosophers, even though it is a self-canceling notion that produces laughter among scientists and other critical thinkers. Q: "What is deconstructive post-modernism?" A: "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." Q: "But shouldn't that idea logically be applied to post-modernism itself, thus nullifying it?" A: "Can you run that by me again? I'm a philosopher, the idea of self-reference is out of my depth." > Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers. The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example.

lutusp 13y ago

> What's with the intense elitism here? Have you taken a philosophy course before? First response: Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are qualified to criticize the field? If so, will the real elitist please stand up? Second response: To serve on a jury in a murder trial, do I have to be a murderer? No, I only need to be able to evaluate evidence. It's the same here. I find it amazing that you were unable to anticipate this obvious reply, given your attachment to philosophy and the critical-thinking skills it imparts. > The article was clearly arguing in favor of the general public learning to think critically. But that's not philosophy's goal, that's science's goal. It was philosophy's goal until about 1800 (when scientists were known as "natural philosophers"), but since then a historic split has separated those who favor argument from those who favor evidence. > But to dismiss the entire field with snark (like it is so commonly done on HN) is just in bad taste and exhibits exactly the lack in critical thinking that this article was taking about. It is critical thinking, aptly applied, that correctly identifies philosophy as a field predisposed to resolve issues with rhetoric rather than evidence. Were this not the case, if philosophy really were the paragon of critical-thinking virtue you claim, it wouldn't exist separate from science, because science already does that.

aschampion 13y ago
Science has nothing to do with critical thinking, science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. Why and how prediction and explanation of phenomena constitute good critical thinking is epistemology, a philosophical concern. Evidence abounds in modern philosophy, although what counts as evidence and how evidence should operate in arguments is an open question -- which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Science has nothing to do with critical thinking ... And I should take a philosophy course to be qualified to comment on philosophy? Science has everything to do with critical thinking. Without the scientific tradition of critical thinking, Bigfoot and the Loch News monster must exist on the ground they haven't been proven not to exist. > ... science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step without which it's not science. > ... which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive empiricism. The only reason philosophers (and others) live beyond the age of 40 is the naive empiricism we see all around us. As to philosophical arguments holding primacy over others, this hasn't been true for over 100 years, since the day when science combined critical thinking with reality-testing. Philosophers don't reality-test, and they don't have a reliable basis for falsifying theories. The proof is that deconstructive post-modernism is alive and well among philosophers, even though it is a self-canceling notion that produces laughter among scientists and other critical thinkers. Q: "What is deconstructive post-modernism?" A: "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." Q: "But shouldn't that idea logically be applied to post-modernism itself, thus nullifying it?" A: "Can you run that by me again? I'm a philosopher, the idea of self-reference is out of my depth." > Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature by contemporary philosophers. The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely typical example.