Wix comments on There's learned philosophers but not philosophical experts - Less Wrong

3 Post author: JamesCole 29 January 2012 10:28AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (17)

Comments (17)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 29 January 2012 06:43:32PM *  11 points [-]

Isn't that what Wittgenstein and Quine were saying?

Not necessarily a contradiction but here is slightly different take on it:

Scientists sometimes deceive themsevles into thinking that philosophical ideas are only, at best, decorations or parasitic commentaries on the hard, objective triumphs of science, and that they themselves are immune to the confusions that philosophers devote their lives to dissolving. But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.

-Daniel Dennett

Comment author: lessdazed 30 January 2012 01:45:42AM 5 points [-]

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.

--John Maynard Keynes

Comment author: Multiheaded 30 January 2012 08:54:16PM *  0 points [-]

Reading such quotes, I don't understand how Moldbug and others can decry their "progressivist" opponents as a sinister and secretive world-spanning stand-alone complex. It's just a few middle-aged men (they're neither old nor young when they deploy their key works), and, lately, women, gently guiding history insofar as it can be guided, speaking quite clearly about their capabilities and intentions. Is this power structure necessarily so awful?

Comment author: buybuydandavis 30 January 2012 10:13:07AM 1 point [-]

I've heard Dennett say much the same thing as the original post, and thought you were going to quote as such. He sees the interesting work to be found at the edges of science and technology, where people are still trying to formulate decent questions.

Comment author: [deleted] 30 January 2012 11:34:01AM 0 points [-]

Yes he is of the view that neuroscience, evolutionary theory etc. can cast light on philosophical questions. But I don't think the quote contradicts that position, just that "Scientists" sometimes do not recognise that they do in fact construct their theories on a philosophical foundation.

Comment author: buybuydandavis 31 January 2012 12:29:48AM 1 point [-]

I didn't intend what I said to contradict your statement - just elaborate along the same lines.

Comment author: [deleted] 31 January 2012 07:12:32PM 0 points [-]

Sorry, misinterpreted. I guess I was anticipating a more skeptical answer, since Dennett critique philosophers more often than he critique scientists - as you put it "decent questions".

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit