RichardKennaway comments on Philosophy Needs to Trust Your Rationality Even Though It Shouldn't - Less Wrong

27 Post author: lukeprog 29 November 2012 09:00PM

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

Comments (169)

Sort By: Best

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

Comment author: RichardKennaway 30 November 2012 05:04:49PM * 4 points [-]

It seems to me that my list of advances do fall under Wikipedia's description of philosophy

I agree. But there are also some systematic differences between what the people you cited did and what (other) philosophers do.

The former didn't merely study fundamental problems, they solved them.
They did stuff that now exists and can be studied independently of the original works. You don't have to read a single word of Turing to understand Turing machines and their importance. You need not study Solomonoff to understand Solomonoff induction.
Their works are generally not shelved with philosophy in libraries. Are they studied in undergraduate courses on philosophy?

Comment author: novalis 30 November 2012 06:23:21PM 3 points [-]

Turing's work on AI (and Searle's response) was discussed in my undergrad intro phil course. But that is not quite the same thing.

Comment author: BerryPick6 30 November 2012 05:07:42PM 1 point [-]

Their works are generally not shelved with philosophy in libraries. Are they studied in undergraduate courses on philosophy?

Not in my undergraduate program, at least.