GabrielDuquette comments on Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant - Less Wrong

65 Post author: lukeprog 06 December 2012 12:42AM

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

Comments (510)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2012 03:25:20PM *  -1 points [-]

I don't understand why this isn't simple. Science and philosophy are both abstractions of reality in the sense that they both have less detail than reality. But philosophy has way less detail than science. So shouldn't philosophy knuckle under and reformat itself to become science's gentle introductory text?

EDIT: This comment reminded me why it isnt simple.

Comment author: Peterdjones 04 December 2012 03:33:59PM 0 points [-]

Philosophy largely isn't about uninterpreted reality, it is largely about how humans think about and relate to reality. And each other. And thought itself.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2012 03:36:24PM 0 points [-]

I guess? But it still needs oversight. Those questions are important enough to require precision that philosophy doesn't have.

Comment author: Peterdjones 04 December 2012 03:42:21PM 0 points [-]

But it still needs oversight.

From whom? Do you know of some people who understand philosophy and can do it better than philosophers, but aren't philosphers?

Those questions are important enough to require precision that philosophy doesn't have.

I find that imprecise. Did you mean conceptual or numerical precision?

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2012 04:01:06PM *  1 point [-]

I'm not sure how to answer you, because I don't get how philosophy isn't a sketchbook/scrapbook for other fields (who don't even necessarily need outside sketchbooking/scrapbooking help).

Did you mean conceptual or numerical precision?

Both?

Besides coming up with questions for science to answer, describing the history of ideas, and teaching people basic question-asking skills, what do we need philosophy for?

Comment author: Peterdjones 04 December 2012 04:10:42PM -1 points [-]

I don't get how philosophy isn't a sketchbook/scrapbook for other fields

It isn't becuase it isn't just a vaguer way of addressing the same questions.

what do we need philosophy for?

coming up with questions for philosphy to answer, teaching advanced question-ansering skills, etc.

Comment author: [deleted] 04 December 2012 04:13:47PM 1 point [-]

Philosophy has answered questions?

Comment author: Peterdjones 04 December 2012 04:19:32PM 0 points [-]

Yes. Eg: "Is Logical Positivism a good idea?". Answer: no.

Comment author: BerryPick6 04 December 2012 04:21:56PM *  1 point [-]

Eg: "Is Logical Positivism a good idea?". Answer: no.

Philosophy has yet to answer what "good" or "idea" even mean with authority, so I'm gonna say no to this, although I don't disagree with your overall assertion.

Comment author: Peterdjones 04 December 2012 04:24:51PM 0 points [-]

I don't think the fine details of "good" and "idea" are relevant. What' relevant is that no-one does LP any more, and even its former adherents turned against it.