Is philosophy worth bothering with?

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#901  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2017 2:06 pm

archibald wrote:
Fallible wrote:And is necessity the criterion upon which to judge something's right to exist?


A very good philosophical question. Unamenable to science, pretty much, I think. As such, possibly only of limited interest to the nerds in here. Sort of like how realistic human drama is possibly only of limited interest to those in the film thread. :evilgrin:


Good or not, the question seems backwards. Here existence of (philosophy) is being used to assess its needfulness. We have no trouble admitting that philosophy exists. Focusing on its necessity only puts a nice shine on the existing so-collectible knick-knack.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29394
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#902  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 17, 2017 2:17 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
archibald wrote:
Fallible wrote:And is necessity the criterion upon which to judge something's right to exist?


A very good philosophical question. Unamenable to science, pretty much, I think. As such, possibly only of limited interest to the nerds in here. Sort of like how realistic human drama is possibly only of limited interest to those in the film thread. :evilgrin:


Good or not, the question seems backwards. Here existence of (philosophy) is being used to assess its needfulness. We have no trouble admitting that philosophy exists. Focusing on its necessity only puts a nice shine on the existing so-collectible knick-knack.

So you don't think that the philosophy of science in any way helps science? It only helps philosophy?? :what:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#903  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 2:23 pm

VazScep wrote:.........This stuff isn't decided a priori. We'll know what works when it does.


I do take those points.

But I might say that I didn't have any of the guys I mentioned, including Pinker, down as deciding anything a priori. At best, they have made contributions from the philosophical/theoretical point of view. Except when they were applying it themselves, and I see that Pinker has a rather long and impressive academic curriculum vitae and list of awards for his cognitive science, so I certainly don't feel qualified to dismiss him.

Not being a linguist, I could say something similar about Chomsky as I did about Pinker.

I only know one qualified linguist and while he might say that things have moved on since Chomsky and not necessarily agree with him, I think he'd still acknowledge that he made a big contribution to linguistics. As for his contributions to computer languages, sure, these may have gone out of favour, but it wasn't so long ago they were relevant.

As for Dennett, I think you suggested earlier that he might be one of those people who merely get cited briefly to add credibility to a paper, but the first Cognitive science paper I posted suggests that at least four Italian cognitive scientists wouldn't take that view.

I myself am not a Cognitive scientist. Coincidentally, I only know one of these also, and he is a huge Dennett fan. :)
Last edited by archibald on Jan 17, 2017 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#904  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2017 2:32 pm

archibald wrote:At best, they have made contributions from the philosophical/theoretical point of view.


What does that reference, Arch? It only references what you think are contributions. Like, in your opinion. To do the rest, you quote others who cite that opinion about what is or isn't a contribution. It's a shell game. Nobody's obliged to recognize those contributions unless you say what they are and produce an argument on their behalf.

archibald wrote:Pinker has a rather long and impressive academic curriculum vitae


Circular. Shell game. Completely ignores what VazScep was saying.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29394
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#905  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2017 2:36 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
archibald wrote:
Fallible wrote:And is necessity the criterion upon which to judge something's right to exist?


A very good philosophical question. Unamenable to science, pretty much, I think. As such, possibly only of limited interest to the nerds in here. Sort of like how realistic human drama is possibly only of limited interest to those in the film thread. :evilgrin:


Good or not, the question seems backwards. Here existence of (philosophy) is being used to assess its needfulness. We have no trouble admitting that philosophy exists. Focusing on its necessity only puts a nice shine on the existing so-collectible knick-knack.

So you don't think that the philosophy of science in any way helps science? It only helps philosophy?? :what:


It's going to depend on your actually pointing out the help and making an argument as to how it's helpful. I don't expect that, because these threads always decay into complaining that someone is unfairly dismissing an all-too-generally-expressed value for philosophy.

The boilerplate text that researchers attach to their funding proposals on how it's going to be socially useful is a function of the funding game, which we ought to be able to remove from the equation for the purpose of pondering abstractions.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 17, 2017 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29394
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#906  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 2:37 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:Circular. Shell game. Completely ignores what VazScep was saying.


I would disagree, but hey cito, rather than me saying stuff and you picking out bits for critique, why don't you come up with something yourself. I'll listen. Really I will. If it ever happens. After a while, your incessant carping about what others write becomes uninteresting to read. See: literature.
Last edited by archibald on Jan 17, 2017 2:45 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#907  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 2:41 pm

DavidMcC wrote:So you don't think that the philosophy of science in any way helps science? It only helps philosophy?? :what:


Personally, I'd say no, or at least very little. That's philosophy of science I'm talking about. Philosophy in or with science might be a different matter. :)
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#908  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2017 2:45 pm

archibald wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Circular. Shell game. Completely ignores what VazScep was saying.


I would disagree, but hey cito, rather than me saying stuff and you picking holes, why don't you come up with something yourself. I'll listen. Really I will. After a while, your incessant carping about what others write becomes uninteresting to read. See: limitations of commentary.


All I'm pointing out is that if you think philosophy is worth bothering with, then that's what you think. I bother with it whether or not it's worth bothering with, and interactions like this one convince me that my position is arrived at empirically.

The noise is about the word 'worth'. It's about values amd arguing about values is politics. Me, I'm out of politics.

Tons and tons of people don't think science and maths are worth bothering with, but there's always a shadow of a doubt that they feel that way because science and maths are fucking difficult. Writing opinions and commentary isn't.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 17, 2017 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29394
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#909  Postby Fallible » Jan 17, 2017 2:48 pm

You bother with it when it's worth bothering with. When you bother with it, it must have reached the level of worth at which you can be bothered to bother.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#910  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2017 2:52 pm

Fallible wrote:You bother with it when it's worth bothering with. When you bother with it, it must have reached the level of worth at which you can be bothered to bother.


Well, of course, but the argument of the OP is something we would hope didn't get its answer from the trivial fact that people bother with it. I'd hoped there was something else to the matter. But sure, water is wet. Except on wax.

Let's not limit ourselves to the vacuity of literal quotation, and try to see whether in the context, 'worth it' means something more than a collection of irritable people getting off on argument for the sake of argument.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29394
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#911  Postby Fallible » Jan 17, 2017 2:58 pm

Oh, I see you did a massive edit. I'm merely pointing out that you don't bother with it whether it's worth bothering with or not.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#912  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 17, 2017 3:03 pm

Fallible wrote:Oh, I see you did a massive edit. I'm merely pointing out that you don't bother with it whether it's worth bothering with or not.


That's exactly right. Isn't it obvious that I do it just to get on the tits of people who let their tits out a mile? Never forget this thread was started by someone who doesn't think philosophy is worth bothering with. As soon as ever somebody does that, the chorus begins, and just like you, I'm curious as to why that is.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Placebo Domingo
Posts: 29394
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#913  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 3:11 pm

Cito di Pense wrote: I'm curious as to why that is.


You and spinozasgalt both. It's like your own little quiz show in here that you get to be the hosts of.

What's on your answer cards? Peoples wants to kno.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#914  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 3:19 pm

As for Pinker, I can't personally judge, obviously, but do you seriously get into and get awards from The National Academy of Sciences these days just for having nice curly hair and being useless? If so, I think we need to kno why science would bother with that. He has photographs of the president with his pinkie hanging out, or what?
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#915  Postby VazScep » Jan 17, 2017 3:48 pm

archibald wrote:I only know one qualified linguist and while he might say that things have moved on since Chomsky and not necessarily agree with him, I think he'd still acknowledge that he made a big contribution to linguistics. As for his contributions to computer languages, sure, these may have gone out of favour, but it wasn't so long ago they were relevant.
Actually, his contributions in the terms of the Chomsky hierarchy are a basic requirement of a computer science education. It doesn't always sink in, so you still get professional coders asking what regex to use to parse HTML.
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#916  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 3:56 pm

VazScep wrote:
archibald wrote:I only know one qualified linguist and while he might say that things have moved on since Chomsky and not necessarily agree with him, I think he'd still acknowledge that he made a big contribution to linguistics. As for his contributions to computer languages, sure, these may have gone out of favour, but it wasn't so long ago they were relevant.
Actually, his contributions in the terms of the Chomsky hierarchy are a basic requirement of a computer science education. It doesn't always sink in, so you still get professional coders asking what regex to use to parse HTML.


Cool. I didn't kno that.

I'm tempted to ask what statistical methods have replaced NLP but I worry that I won't understand the answer.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#917  Postby VazScep » Jan 17, 2017 4:08 pm

archibald wrote:As for Pinker, I can't personally judge, obviously, but do you seriously get into and get awards from The National Academy of Sciences these days just for having nice curly hair and being useless? If so, I think we need to kno why science would bother with that. He has photographs of the president with his pinkie hanging out, or what?
Well, he does lab work, so this is where we really need to get into specifics. I've read three of his books and attended one of his lectures, and they would be classified as popular science, not philosophy. And Chomsky's one of the most cited scholars, but how much of that is for his politics?
Here we go again. First, we discover recursion.
VazScep
 
Posts: 4590

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#918  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 4:19 pm

VazScep wrote:..I've read three of his books and attended one of his lectures, and they would be classified as popular science, not philosophy.


Really? If I recall right, the culminating chapter of 'How The Mind Works' was an argument for a computational theory of mind.
Last edited by archibald on Jan 17, 2017 4:36 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#919  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 17, 2017 4:27 pm

archibald wrote:
VazScep wrote:..I've read three of his books and attended one of his lectures, and they would be classified as popular science, not philosophy.


Really? If I recall right, the culminating chapter of 'How The Mind Works' was an argument for a computational theory of mind.

I'm not dodging your other questions. 'How much worth bothering with' is a different question to just 'worth bothering with'. I'm not making big claims for philosophy even for the individuals I've cited.

I haven't read Pinker, but I am quite sure that the mind cannot be reduced to a computer, no matter how big the computer, largely because a computer does not use hormone-induced emotion to make decisions, only data input and computation. Show me a computer with atitude that isn't pre-programmed - fake attitude.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 67
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Is philosophy worth bothering with?

#920  Postby archibald » Jan 17, 2017 4:29 pm

DavidMcC wrote:I haven't read Pinker, but I am quite sure that the mind cannot be reduced to a computer, no matter how big the computer, largely because a computer does not use emotion to make decisions, only data input and computation. Show me a computer with atitude that isn't pre-programmed - fake attitude.


We've been around for hundreds of thousands of years but only had proper computers for about half a century. Give it time. :)
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10294
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests