JoshuaZ comments on How SIAI could publish in mainstream cognitive science journals - Less Wrong

64 Post author: lukeprog 09 March 2011 09:17PM

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

Comments (76)

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

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 March 2011 08:03:35PM 8 points [-]

Agree or disagree with the following statement?

"After publishing the paper in a philosophy journal so that academics would be allowed to talk about it without losing face, you would have to write a separate essay to explain the ideas to anyone who actually wanted to know them, including those philosophers."

Comment author: JoshuaZ 11 March 2011 05:53:53AM 7 points [-]

Disagree. The area of philosophy I'm most familiar with (phil sci) is generally very easily understandable. I'm also not even sure this is a substantial objection. In many areas of learning, there are specialized vocabulary that take a lot of effort to understand. That's due to the deepness of the areas. Math is one example of this. I actually have more trouble reading papers in math, which is my own field, than I often do in biology (although this may be connected to the fact that I don't read highly technical papers in bio.) So even if your claim were true, it isn't at all clear to me why it would be relevant.

As a simple status issue, if you can get the philosophers to take you seriously, it will cause the people who aren't philosophers but who respect philosophy to take you more seriously.