3 ms·

Shame on you. Nobody should be discouraged from trying to dabble in things that aren't their field. Having the background of being extremely well-trained in on

by MadManE 12y ago

Shame on you. Nobody should be discouraged from trying to dabble in things that aren't their field. Having the background of being extremely well-trained in one field gives a different perspective than the typical "echo-chamber" of the elite in any specialty. If you know something they don't, why not try to start a dialog instead of criticizing and dismissing?

JBiserkov 12y ago
I second that. Paul Graham wrote about this in "How to do philosophy". http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html
- jafaku 12y ago
  That was a great reading, thanks.
pmoriarty 12y ago
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but I only criticize because they're often given a soapbox (such as in this article) due to the perception that they are specially endowed with the power of "explaining how the world is" to us mere mortals. Well, that wouldn't be so bad if they stuck to explaining the results of their experiments, but when they stray from that on to philosophical subjects, they're really no more suited to talking about that than any other non-philosophically trained layman. It might help if they toned down the rhetoric a bit and make it clear that they're speaking about something that they have no training in. On the other hand, I suppose I should be grateful that they're exposing the general public to ideas they might not have otherwise thought about, even if they do so clumsily and their conclusions are highly suspect.
- MadManE 12y ago
  I would contend that having a high degree of education in anything develops certain thinking abilities that are widely transferable. At some point, they transform from being a "layman" into being an "amateur philosopher" simply by virtue of these transferable thinking skills. Of course being an amateur doesn't lend a high degree of credibility, but certainly more than the average Joe.

by MadManE 12y ago

JBiserkov 12y ago

I second that. Paul Graham wrote about this in "How to do philosophy". http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

jafaku 12y ago
That was a great reading, thanks.

pmoriarty 12y ago

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but I only criticize because they're often given a soapbox (such as in this article) due to the perception that they are specially endowed with the power of "explaining how the world is" to us mere mortals. Well, that wouldn't be so bad if they stuck to explaining the results of their experiments, but when they stray from that on to philosophical subjects, they're really no more suited to talking about that than any other non-philosophically trained layman. It might help if they toned down the rhetoric a bit and make it clear that they're speaking about something that they have no training in. On the other hand, I suppose I should be grateful that they're exposing the general public to ideas they might not have otherwise thought about, even if they do so clumsily and their conclusions are highly suspect.

MadManE 12y ago
I would contend that having a high degree of education in anything develops certain thinking abilities that are widely transferable. At some point, they transform from being a "layman" into being an "amateur philosopher" simply by virtue of these transferable thinking skills. Of course being an amateur doesn't lend a high degree of credibility, but certainly more than the average Joe.