3 ms·

> 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 examp

> 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. It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of thought and applying it to an entire field. A good critical thinking philosopher would not do that, or at least be so sure of himself while doing it. > "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and that everything is a matter of opinion." This is beyond out-dated as a useful school of thought. Again, If you read Kant and Popper, they outlined why thinking along those lines is impractical and unproductive, which clearly you seem to agree with. > 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. This is true, however like I said, sir Karl Popper was the one that entirely defined this notion of falsifiability you're talking about. Furthermore, something can still be 'scientific' if it follows the traditional scientific method, but a proper scientific theory cannot be formed without valid falsifiability. And to go back to your previous response: > Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are qualified to criticize the field? No, but it would be much more productive for society if people were more open to understanding the fields they hold strong opinions about before resorting to make misguided generalizations about them. This applies just as much to attacking philosophy the way you are, as it does to people who argue against vaccination/GMOs/whatever; anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism. Arguing as if from a stance of higher intellectual ground while making straw-man arguments everywhere is not a very fruitful argumentation technique. Like I mentioned above, it seems you actually largely agree with a large important branch of philosophy here, yet you don't seem to be aware of it and are dismissing the entire field. 'Thinking Critically' has been thoroughly thought out by many philosophers throughout history, and that is what led to both Science and Mathematics; Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the illogical. So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are saying is misinformed, please do read Popper at the very least his 'On the Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance' and 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' papers, because his thoughts are still prevalent in modern science and I think you will largely agree with them.

lutusp 13y ago
> It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of thought and applying it to an entire field. You really need to learn how to shape an argument -- your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise. Deconstructive postmodernism is an idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts the entire field's critical thinking ability. Now read carefully: Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science's respect for critical thinking. If even a few scientists accepted astrology in a formal sense, it would indict science training. Because more than a few philosophers detect no contradiction in deconstructive postmodernism, this indicts philosophical training and its respect for critical thinking. Which was my point. > So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are saying is misinformed ... You skipped the part where you offered any evidence to support this conclusion. On the other hand, you're a philosopher, so my expectations aren't dashed. > Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's [sic] entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the illogical. First, you want "its" here, not "it's". Second, that presumably explains why lit-crit is a laughingstock. Read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair In the above now-famous episode in contemporary philosophy, a scientist wrote a deliberate hoax philosophy article which was eagerly accepted and published. The author then revealed what he did and why. The overarching problem is a lack of reality-testing in philosophical fields, and a less than rigorous respect for logical argument, defects not shared by science.
- oblique63 13y ago
  > your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise. Ok, so your knowledge of these terms indicates that at least you've taken an introductory course on philosophy at some point, so that's good. However the key point in my argument is "seems", because it would be silly to think that I know anything about what you're knowledgeable about. > ...an idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts the entire field's critical thinking ability. And there's where your argument falls apart. How does your conclusion follow from your premise? Greek mythology is still very much a full field of its own, but I doubt it has any active believers remaining in this day and age; that doesn't make it any less of a belief system. Similarly, I could argue that all modern music listeners are teen girls because Justin Bieber's fan base is mostly teen girls. It just doesn't follow, regardless of how you feel about one aspect of a field. > Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science's respect for critical thinking. Yep, but they didn't always used to. Astronomy originated from Astrology, and provided it with many valid theories that Astronomy then took as its own. Astrology now is mostly classified by its silly belief system, but that's the nature of intellectual evolution. Popper's essay "On the Sources of Knowledge" that I mentioned deals explicitly with Astrology/Astronomy, and Classical Mechanics/Relativity as its prime examples. It's a good short read, you should seek it out. Either way, I'm not sure why you keep going off on tangents with regards to spelling or literature and such, but an important part of constructing good arguments is the avoidance of logical fallacies. A good reference of them can be found here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ I hope from my tone that you can tell that I am merely trying to help build your understanding of the field, because your claim of lack-or-rigor in philosophy is easily disproved by even a quick glance at history. Mathematical proofs are some of the most rigorous formal 'theories' we have, and they originated with philosophy. Similarly, 'falsifiability' as a concept was invented in philosophy. It is the dismissal of this that is discerning. Otherwise, it seems we generally agree, and that you're misplacing your arguments against the wrong foe. A friendly understanding of this would be nice, but I don't gather from your tone that that is what you are after...

lutusp 13y ago

> It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of thought and applying it to an entire field. You really need to learn how to shape an argument -- your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise. Deconstructive postmodernism is an idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts the entire field's critical thinking ability. Now read carefully: Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science's respect for critical thinking. If even a few scientists accepted astrology in a formal sense, it would indict science training. Because more than a few philosophers detect no contradiction in deconstructive postmodernism, this indicts philosophical training and its respect for critical thinking. Which was my point. > So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are saying is misinformed ... You skipped the part where you offered any evidence to support this conclusion. On the other hand, you're a philosopher, so my expectations aren't dashed. > Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's [sic] entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the illogical. First, you want "its" here, not "it's". Second, that presumably explains why lit-crit is a laughingstock. Read more at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair In the above now-famous episode in contemporary philosophy, a scientist wrote a deliberate hoax philosophy article which was eagerly accepted and published. The author then revealed what he did and why. The overarching problem is a lack of reality-testing in philosophical fields, and a less than rigorous respect for logical argument, defects not shared by science.

oblique63 13y ago
> your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise. Ok, so your knowledge of these terms indicates that at least you've taken an introductory course on philosophy at some point, so that's good. However the key point in my argument is "seems", because it would be silly to think that I know anything about what you're knowledgeable about. > ...an idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts the entire field's critical thinking ability. And there's where your argument falls apart. How does your conclusion follow from your premise? Greek mythology is still very much a full field of its own, but I doubt it has any active believers remaining in this day and age; that doesn't make it any less of a belief system. Similarly, I could argue that all modern music listeners are teen girls because Justin Bieber's fan base is mostly teen girls. It just doesn't follow, regardless of how you feel about one aspect of a field. > Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science's respect for critical thinking. Yep, but they didn't always used to. Astronomy originated from Astrology, and provided it with many valid theories that Astronomy then took as its own. Astrology now is mostly classified by its silly belief system, but that's the nature of intellectual evolution. Popper's essay "On the Sources of Knowledge" that I mentioned deals explicitly with Astrology/Astronomy, and Classical Mechanics/Relativity as its prime examples. It's a good short read, you should seek it out. Either way, I'm not sure why you keep going off on tangents with regards to spelling or literature and such, but an important part of constructing good arguments is the avoidance of logical fallacies. A good reference of them can be found here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ I hope from my tone that you can tell that I am merely trying to help build your understanding of the field, because your claim of lack-or-rigor in philosophy is easily disproved by even a quick glance at history. Mathematical proofs are some of the most rigorous formal 'theories' we have, and they originated with philosophy. Similarly, 'falsifiability' as a concept was invented in philosophy. It is the dismissal of this that is discerning. Otherwise, it seems we generally agree, and that you're misplacing your arguments against the wrong foe. A friendly understanding of this would be nice, but I don't gather from your tone that that is what you are after...