RichardChappell comments on Philosophy: A Diseased Discipline - Less Wrong

88 Post author: lukeprog 28 March 2011 07:31PM

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

Comments (425)

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

Comment author: RichardChappell 30 March 2011 04:58:00PM 0 points [-]

As for intuitions trumping science, that was unclear. What I mean is that, in my view, philosophers still often take their intuitions to be more powerful evidence than the trends of science (e.g. reductionism) - and again I can point to this example.

Ah, you mean capital-S 'Science', as opposed to just the empirical data. One might have a view compatible with all the scientific data without buying in to the ideological picture that we can't use non-empirical methods (viz. philosophy) when investigating non-empirical questions.

Comment author: lukeprog 30 March 2011 07:25:50PM 3 points [-]

Non-empirical questions like... what? Mathematical questions?

Comment author: RichardChappell 30 March 2011 09:48:34PM *  0 points [-]

Like, whether phenomenal properties just are certain physical/functional properties, or whether the two are merely nomologically co-extensive (going together in all worlds with the same natural laws as our own). This is obviously neither mathematical nor empirical. Similarly with normative questions: what's a reasonable credence to have given such-and-such evidence, etc.

See: Overcoming Scientism