The Perils of Pop Philosophy 484
ThousandStars tips a new piece by Julian Sanchez, the guy who, in case you missed it, brought us a succinct definition of the one-way hash argument (of the type often employed in the US culture wars). This one is about the dangers of a certain kind of oversimplifying, as practiced routinely by journalists and bloggers. "This brings us around to some of my longstanding ambivalence about blogging and journalism more generally. On the one hand, while it's probably not enormously important whether most people have a handle on the mind-body problem, a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics. On the other hand, I look at the online public sphere and too often tend to find myself thinking: 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."
Philosophy of Mind (Score:2, Interesting)
Cutting through the needless walls of text by both Sanchez and Brady, let me summarize the current state of the philosophy of mind:
1) We are little closer to reading off "beliefs" from human brains than we were 30 years ago.
2) Media often overgeneralizes the results of neuroscientists.
3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.
4) Religious people have a problem with (3).
5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).
6) More specifically, philosophers think too highly of functionalism [wikipedia.org].
I say this as a philosopher and not a scientist, but having studied these topics for a while, I have more respect for the scientists than the philosophers.
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Click. (Score:5, Interesting)
But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
I doubt it. To write with that level of ease and complexity, one needs to occupy the required head-space in earnest. Probably doesn't even notice he's doing it except on those rare occasions when he pulls back from the keyboard to pause for a breather and watch himself. And people, even the smart ones, rarely manage to do that more than a handful of times in any given life.
That, and the fact, (in my opinion anyway), he also happens to be right.
Not that it matters. For some reason everybody who thinks and writes seems to be perpetually concerned about what humanity ought to do about the state of humanity. The longer I live, the more I realize that the quest for societal justice is a fool's errand. Nobody can change anything no matter how hard they try, and the most amazing thing is that nobody realizes this astonishing truth. Change requires awareness, and machines are not aware. Almost all humans are machines. Even as I write this, I can hear the gears clicking in my skull, still on auto-pilot. And I've been working on this stuff.
-FL
You don't have to be a generalist... (Score:5, Interesting)
or specialize in every field. Studying math and specializing in it is a safe bet to gain most general knowledge that is still applicable to wide array of scientific fields, and that would allow you to follow quite a bit of science.
These days majority of science is based on mathematical models, including physics, chemistry (esp. the physical chemistry part of it), biochemistry, computer science, certainly climate and weather prediction, astronomy, engineering of almost any kind, but esp. electrical and mechanical, and lately more esoteric things like psychology and theories of the mind, and less esoteric things like sociology and crowd behaviors.
True, mathematician is no expert on any of these fields, but is armed with enough mathematical knowledge that coupled with a bit of curiosity and motivation to read and research is enough to give them insight into any of these fields, and sometimes better insight than people who traditionally are bad at formulating theories like biologists, or psychiatrists for example.
Re:Philosophy of Mind (Score:3, Interesting)
I realize very well what you're saying. That line of reasoning has been around, and readily acknowledged by philosophers, for over 50 years. The whole idea behind functionalism is categorizing the brain as "hardware" and mind as "software". I'm saying too much has been made of this distinction, however. Does this mean that computers will never "think" like humans do? No, not really. But the brain as forged by millions of years of evolution is very different than computational algorithms engineered in 100 or so years by humans. We should learn much more neuroscience before we starting where, if anywhere, can we find the dividing line between the brain's "hardware" and "software".
Re:Communication (Score:2, Interesting)
If you have an audience that is sufficiently interested in your subject to be reading/hearing whatever material you are presenting and you are still unable to presnt your ideas in such a way that the majority of that audience understands you then things have gone wrong:
either
you misunderstood your audience
or
you don't sufficiently understand your topic
or
you're an inherently bad communicator.
Of course there can be other explanations but I am talking generally here. Perhaps the ideas ARE actually extremely complex, sure these exist, but they are the exception not the norm.
Re:The web gives us all a voice (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Philosophy of Mind (Score:2, Interesting)
Having done philosophy for a while, I just got tired of countless intuition pumps that do little more than restate predetermined conclusions. I think it's better to cut away the needless scaffolding of intricate arguments and just state the conclusions we're trying to arrive at. This, at least, is academically honest.
I would also prefer that "simpler" positions are the default. The mind is just the brain. If it is not, we'd need a good reason to think this. I know it's hardly an argument, but I've yet to hear anything to convince me otherwise. The more fantastic the arguments I hear, the more weary I get. Mental zombies and Chinese rooms are just some of the most egregious. The entire enterprise of philosophy of mind has yet to shed it's Cartesian dualistic origins. When it gets past that I might start paying attention again.
Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not just misleading use of statistics -- those are easier to identify since they do deal in factual numbers. It's the underlying political agendas that get people to mislead through omission, commission, or outright lying. In the end it's not about whose argument is more correct, and not even who has the "more authoritative authority." It's about whose argument swayed the people in power. We can all sit here at our keyboards whining about how stupid Jack Thompson is, or how evil Comcast is for opposing net neutrality, but in the end it's not about convincing us -- it's about convincing Congress (or Parliament or whatever they have where you live.)
And even though we'd like to think differently about their abilities, Congress is not very different than Joe Sixpack. Sure, they'll stack their offices with competent and smart advisors (we hope) but with the hundreds of bills they have to review, and the fact that a well-reasoned, well-researched letter only puts a checkmark in the "for" column that's equally counted against Cletus' "The TV dun tell me it's bad" means that the philosophical and scientific arguments are ultimately worthless.
The scientific campaigns can be spun in whichever direction they're needed, regardless of their methods, their science, or their outcome. The real lesson is "Do not waste your time and money on science, but spend it only on the advertising campaigns that promote whichever viewpoint puts more money in your pocket." Pay an actor to wear a lab coat when he delivers your message. Have him wear a hard hat and carry a clipboard. Pose him in front of a very large machine, or a pristine meadow. That's where your dollars have their biggest effect.
When your doctor proscribes penecillin (Score:1, Interesting)
do you say "no! I DEMAND another opinion!"?
When your builder says that your desire for a 12' wide opening means that you can't build it without risk to the house collapsing, you say "No! I DEMAND another opinon!"?
Or do you listen to the experts?
natural philosophy? (Score:3, Interesting)
"'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."
Or perhaps this is a problem limited to philosophy? Perhaps this non-linear and recursive characteristic defines philosophy? The difference between science and philosophy is that science is ineluctably rooted in physical reality, in the natural world. Indeed the original name for science was natural philosophy.
On the other hand philosophy - or its varied analogues of religion, politics and economics - is rooted in extremely shallow real world soil. Every word that has ever been spoken on these topics has been thrashed and pounded, mashed and strained through some pedagogue's fevered ontological imagination.
Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments. The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly. Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?
Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher. It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all. These are true mysteries.
Even kindergarten philosophy [amazon.com] presents challenges, however, because the systems being modeled - us and a putative deity - are inherently complex. Rather than suggesting that we need to spend more time wrestling with these ponderous issues, how about simply spending our time more productively by engaging with more tractable material?
Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass (Score:3, Interesting)
And even though we'd like to think differently about their abilities, Congress is not very different than Joe Sixpack.
I may be stating the obvious, but it was that realization when I was in high school that turned me into a (small 'l') libertarian.
I was on a job shadowing trip to visit with our local state representative. We got to follow her around all day, talk a bit about current policy issues, and see how the different committee and general assembly sessions worked.
And that was the strongest impression that I walked away with... they were all so average.
I had somehow grown up with the idea that whether politicians were lying crooks or paragons of virtue, they were something slightly above the average idiot in my classes. I imagined Machiavellian schemes to reward the fats cats that got them into power or grab more power for themselves, opposed by those few good men who had somehow managed to survive the grindings of the political machines.
What I saw was just a bunch of middle aged men and women who seemed in general to be less intelligent (or at least no more) than the people I met at random social events whom I knew I could already argue and problem-solve circles around.
I guess I expected them to be smart the same way people generally expect doctors or scientists to be smart. Maybe not all brilliance, but at least hitting that "I went to the gifted classes" level of intelligence.
My friend got into a policy argument with our representative over some local environmental issue - it was a big deal at the time, and in her district. The rep stated her "for or against" position, then handed it off to her intern, a college guy who was barely older than us, and seemed to be overall worse-informed than my friend on the arguments for and against the issue, and why the rep was against it (aside from the real answer, which was "my majority leader told me to be").
The realization that our all-powerful government was being run by people whom I wouldn't trust to run my school or do my taxes made a big impression. I used to think that the problem was just overcoming the negative influences on government - the bribes, the lobbyists, etc. Now I just hope they don't drive the bus into a ditch.
Re:The web gives us all a voice (Score:2, Interesting)
The GP made a really good point against himself.
Socialists love to bring up poor factory conditions and the deplorable conditions of early insane asylums etc. And then they accuse capitalists of not knowing or understanding history, when in fact it is they who don't have a good historical grasp.
Before emancipation we had Feudalism where the Serfs would tend the land of the Lords in exchange for the means of subsistence. After the fall of Feudalism all the Serfs were free but they had nothing. They chose to work in those factories because for the first time they were allowed to keep what they earned. The result was a huge increase in the standards of living for the lowest classes and a massive population boom.
Many insane asylums were little more than prisons, because the so-called "doctors" were making profits keeping those people there. They were deplorable but they were fueled by Britain's "Poor Law" which forced the homeless into horrible community housing and the mentally ill into those disgusting asylums. However, as a result of emancipation the medical sciences received a huge boost. While before the mentally ill were considered possessed by evil spirits and put through torturous exorcism rituals, now medical researchers were treating their illnesses as pathological and began to open hospitals and find ways to treat these patients humanely. When the public caught wind of the deplorable conditions of the asylums they began removing their loved ones and gradually the asylums went out of business.
Unlike communism, capitalism is not a "Utopia". It is not perfect because humans are imperfect. No amount of "social engineering" or "central planning" will make a perfect society for that reason alone. Capitalism provides a gradual increase in the standards of living for everyone over time. But Utopians and central planners love to context-drop. They pick out specific temporary problems, and pretend that they're representative of the larger concept.
Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, we read that differently. I understood him to mean, "if it wants to be successful a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," The one way hash argument isn't elitist, it says it is hard to explain certain things, and when those things are simplified, they aren't being explained. Sanchez is not saying that philosophers would make better leaders, in fact, you've flown off on an anti-elitist tangent that simply does not relate to the arguments being presented, while ignoring the gist of what the author is trying to say.
I'm interested in discerning the bias behind this tangent. What is your position on mind-brain dualism and identity? Is it, perhaps, contrary to the author's view of same?
Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass (Score:2, Interesting)
You mentioned it, so I'll chime in: One of the most disappointing things I ever heard was from a friend who interned for a Texas congresswoman. Every letter and phone call and email gets put in a pile of "for" and "against", separated out by each issue. Nobody (important, at least) reads anything deeper than to learn the writer's/caller's position. It's easy to see why Congress is so spineless and indecisive, easily swayed by oversimplified rhetoric: because their constituents are too.
Side note: That's why I was so shocked a few weeks ago to hear Sen. Jim Webb on the radio talking about the complex issues surrounding prison reform, his experiences in other countries and the realistic case for legalizing certain drugs.
Re:I disagree in principle. (Score:2, Interesting)
The things we argue about tend to be very very simple. It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.
Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
We get souls? I missed the part where that was proven. Actually first you have to define what a soul is before you try arguing if and when we get issued one. And how does the moment of soul gifting alone define the issue? I think what you mean is if you want to oversimplify to make your own argument you can. Which means you don't disagree with TFA at all.
Re:It's not that you're wrong... (Score:4, Interesting)
The same holds true for personal philosophies; solving the problems that being alive presents. When you are listening to other people, you should actually listen to them. Try to see things their way. Don't bash them, even if you disagree. It doesn't hurt. It can often help. And when you're presenting a counterpoint, be genteel about it. Tact goes a very long way.
I agree strongly. One of the things I've learned over the years is that, when someone is disagreeing with you, it's almost always the case that they're thinking about something that's worth considering. They might be misunderstanding a lot of things, mixing up causes and effects, or all making all sorts of mistakes, but if you can figure out what's really at stake in the argument, it's almost always something fairly understandable if not valid.
Like you look at something really contentious like Intelligent Design. I've talked to proponents of Intelligent Design enough to have realized that many of them aren't even interested in it as a scientific theory. The real essential point of contention is that they don't like people trying to use science to tell them that their beliefs, and even their way of life is wrong. Intelligent Design is often just seen as a way of fighting back, of "beating atheists at their own game." And fair enough, because it's true that some atheists want to use evolution as a wedge issue to claim that all religious people are stupid; I can't blame people for wanting to respond. If you can somehow bring the argument around to an admission that "evolution has happened" is not equivalent to "God doesn't exist," then suddenly you'll find that a lot of religious people are more open to evolution as a concept.
Of course, other things get involved, too. For example, sometimes a person is just feeling backed into a corner and that person feels like his ego is at stake in the argument. Now that's not entirely valid, but it's fairly understandable. And if you discover that it's the case, then sometimes you can bring that person around to your side by giving him an opportunity to agree with you without sacrificing his ego-- assuming you can invent that opportunity. Or sometimes you just have to disabuse them of the notion that they can hang their ego on this argument, just so they'll give up.
Anyway, I'm going off on tangents, but my real point here is this: whenever someone is arguing against you, it's good to assume that there's something that person believes is at risk, and that person wants to protect that at-risk thing. If you can't figure out what that at-risk thing is, then you're not very well-prepared to argue.
Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... (Score:3, Interesting)
In a nutshell, "Oh, but we came from there so they're important".
I assure you, I will NEVER bring up the greeks amber experiments while designing a control system, I don't care if electricity is named after amber.
It wasn't until the skeptics that the underlying principles were finally questioned. The field of epistemology thrived in greece, but beyond asking if there's truth, it's not until you question the very basic foundation of human existence that you start with a foundation for philosophy, and in particular, ethics.
Assuming there's an objective truth, what assumptions am I making that can be somehow shown to be part of that objective truth?
Millennia later the answer finally came about: We can't prove any of our assumptions regarding human existence are objective axioms. That's where things finally get interesting. After showing it in a logical, clinical manner, you end up with folks like the existentialists finally building the foundation we needed all along: In a nutshell, "We can logically prove we exist, and we're reasonably sure we're human, but beyond that, all axioms spring from our humanity".
That's a key point, because you're then forced to immediately cast off a lot of the humanity in the universe because humanity isn't a universal value. Kicking away the arbitrary values of humanity, the universe stops being a place where Aristotle's prime mover can exist -- the world becomes a place where it's understood that the concept exists only in Aristotle's mind, as a by-product of how he thinks as a human.
For this reason, even though the greeks are of some historical significance for their work, they're not actually significant because no matter how many solid principles they created, it was still walls hovering above the ground. Until you scrape away the muskeg, your beautiful house will disappear. Electricity is useless when it's just amber and fur.
This is particularly important in ethics, because many axioms are based on our humanity and our current spot in history. The greeks and the christians wouldn't get along well, given the opposing characteristics they valued for ages, each considering their values axiomatic.