No, you’re not entitled to your opinion
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
Not in philosophy, where beliefs are the coin of the realm and anything goes. This philosophy lecturer, apparently disappointed by his chosen field, is trying to turn it into science. I have news for him -- science is already being taught in science classrooms.
Is it true that anything goes in philosophy? To answer, I would ask where deconstructive postmodernism was born (answer: among philosophers). Then one may ask about deconstructive postmodernism (essentially the idea that there are no shared objective truths and everything is a matter of opinion), what's wrong with it? Only that it's self-canceling -- the philosophical claim that there are no shared, objective truths must first be applied to that claim, thus nullifying it.
Perhaps. I just think it's funny seeing a philosopher trying to apply scientific standards of evidence in his classroom.
> It does remind me, though, of my 2nd favorite Onion headline: http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-38-percent-of-people-...
Yep, that's pretty funny all right, especially the "behavioral science" oxymoron. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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/ 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...
No, anything does not go in philosophy. Philosophers become prominent precisely because of the persuasiveness, clarity and and resilience of their arguments, much like science. Science, after all, was birthed from philosophy, and the most active area of contemporary analytic philosophy is philosophy of science.