scientism comments on Rational Me or We? - Less Wrong

116 Post author: RobinHanson 17 March 2009 01:39PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (128)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: scientism 17 March 2009 10:46:20PM 0 points [-]

I think philosophy is a good example. Philosophers are supposed to be more logical/rational than other people and have been generalists until recently (many still are). They have also failed to produce a single significant piece of work on par with anything found in science. Now, some people might disagree with that assessment, but I suspect their counterexamples would be chiefly in specialist sub-disciplines: formal logic, for example. I think to the degree that there has been "good philosophy" it's found under the model of specialists working under the kind of robust institutional framework Robin alludes to rather than individual theorists taking a global perspective (philosophy as martial arts). I can't think of any systematizers I'd credit with discovering truth. I do not think Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Descartes discovered any substantial truths (Descartes mathematical work aside) so we probably differ there. Regardless, I think there's a good argument to be made that historically truth has come from robust institutions involving many specialists (such as science) rather than brilliant lone thinkers taking a global perspective.

Comment deleted 17 March 2009 11:24:12PM *  [-]
Comment author: scientism 18 March 2009 12:01:34AM 3 points [-]

There's a huge difference between being considered historically important and having discovered substantial truth. The Bible is historically important. It helped lay the foundations of Western culture. This is hardly disputable. It does not, however, contain much in the way of truth. Nor do the works of Plato and Aristotle.

Comment author: Court_Merrigan 18 March 2009 02:14:49AM 4 points [-]

To take one example: Aristotle laid down the foundation of what became modern science. Modern science became modern science as we think of it by rebelling against Aristotle's a priori assumptions; without Aristotle, what science we have today would be very different, indeed.

I don't think you can so easily dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, et al: without them we we wouldn't be where we are today.

This is part of the problem I often detected at OB and see again here at LW: people with little respect for intellectual history.