4 ms·

I don't think the article gives valid criticisms of Paul Graham's essay. Let's take a few points: "Let’s start with ethics. Suppose I’m wondering whether it is

by edanm 12y ago

I don't think the article gives valid criticisms of Paul Graham's essay. Let's take a few points: "Let’s start with ethics. Suppose I’m wondering whether it is it right for me demand extra equity because I’m the guy who came up with the idea for our startup. This is not a question about the meaning of my words. If someone responded to my wonderings by saying, “It depends what you mean by the word, ‘right’,” we’d probably think they have missed something." As another commenter has pointed out - of course it depends on what we mean by "right". Right as in "can I get away with it"? Right as in "what's best for people if everyone does what I do"? Right as in "what's best for society"? This is exactly a case of being able to argue a lot without people defining what exactly they mean, and therefore their arguments are worthless. Let's take another quote from the article: "Then there’s epistemology, the study of knowledge. How do we know that we’re not in the matrix? How can we know anything if all our beliefs rest on beliefs that are unsupported by evidence? (We’ve got to have some “foundational beliefs.”) Again, if someone responded to these questions by saying that we are confused about the meaning of the word “know,” we’d feel that they have missed the point." But once again, this shows the problem with philosophy - there are fields in which people discuss what it means to "know things". We've come a long way in certain respects, e.g. coming up with respected models like Bayesianism and others. If someone says "no, but how can I really know I'm not in the Matrix", the answers he should be getting should take into account modern thought backed by some kind of progress. If answers from 2000 years ago are just as valid, we haven't learned anything. And once again, clarifiying that the actual argument isn't about the matrix at all, but rather about the nature of knowledge, is exactly the right approach - trying to clarify what it means to know is what will solve this issue. Paul Graham's essay isn't the best or most complete criticism of philosophy, but it certainly makes a strong case in a clear way that's accessible to many people, and that obviously many people connect with.

rquantz 12y ago
But once again, this shows the problem with philosophy - there are fields in which people discuss what it means to "know things". That's not a problem with philosophy, it's a problem with the OP. Epistemology is the study of what we can know, and what is required to make a claim to knowledge. A side effect of that is that there are a lot of arguments and questions surrounding what it means to know. The difference between me a PG (er, one of many) is that I don't have a problem with that. If you're having an informal discussion on the internet, yes maybe you'll spend a lot of time talking in circles before you can say anything meaningful, but trained philosophers have 3000 years of philosophical arguments to draw on, and can be very specific about what they mean with a given argument or word. Also, there are many forms of philosophy that people don't always think of when they write dismissively about philosophy. Any field of study has a surrounding philosophical discourse, including the hard sciences (Hello, philosophy of research, hello materialism). Dismissing philosophy because it includes arguments about the meaning of words misses the point. We argue about the meanings of words because they form the basis for how we conduct our work, how we transfer knowledge, and how we talk about what we do.
- edanm 12y ago
  You're right - I was too broad in saying "the problem with philosophy" when I should've said "the problem that PG talked about which the OP doesn't in any way refute". As for your thoughts on Philosophy, I'm not sure I agree - philosophers have actually wasted a lot of time arguing over what is in essence semantics, and even when they haven't, there has been plenty of (IMO) unimportant back-and-forth without any evidence or really anything to back it up. (Years of arguing over the mind-body problem without any shred of evidence supporting anyone's worldview). I'm not sure if it's true, but I've heard it said that every field that ends up being practically useful or meaningful turns into a specific field, and Philosophy is all that's left. E.g. Mathematics, Physics, Economics, etc. Arguably, the fields you mention are also specialized branches that are not part of mainstream Philosophy (very arguably though).

by edanm 12y ago

rquantz 12y ago

But once again, this shows the problem with philosophy - there are fields in which people discuss what it means to "know things". That's not a problem with philosophy, it's a problem with the OP. Epistemology is the study of what we can know, and what is required to make a claim to knowledge. A side effect of that is that there are a lot of arguments and questions surrounding what it means to know. The difference between me a PG (er, one of many) is that I don't have a problem with that. If you're having an informal discussion on the internet, yes maybe you'll spend a lot of time talking in circles before you can say anything meaningful, but trained philosophers have 3000 years of philosophical arguments to draw on, and can be very specific about what they mean with a given argument or word. Also, there are many forms of philosophy that people don't always think of when they write dismissively about philosophy. Any field of study has a surrounding philosophical discourse, including the hard sciences (Hello, philosophy of research, hello materialism). Dismissing philosophy because it includes arguments about the meaning of words misses the point. We argue about the meanings of words because they form the basis for how we conduct our work, how we transfer knowledge, and how we talk about what we do.

edanm 12y ago
You're right - I was too broad in saying "the problem with philosophy" when I should've said "the problem that PG talked about which the OP doesn't in any way refute". As for your thoughts on Philosophy, I'm not sure I agree - philosophers have actually wasted a lot of time arguing over what is in essence semantics, and even when they haven't, there has been plenty of (IMO) unimportant back-and-forth without any evidence or really anything to back it up. (Years of arguing over the mind-body problem without any shred of evidence supporting anyone's worldview). I'm not sure if it's true, but I've heard it said that every field that ends up being practically useful or meaningful turns into a specific field, and Philosophy is all that's left. E.g. Mathematics, Physics, Economics, etc. Arguably, the fields you mention are also specialized branches that are not part of mainstream Philosophy (very arguably though).