= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
fortyeridania comments on Train Philosophers with Pearl and Kahneman, not Plato and Kant - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
Yes, good idea.
The "reactions" to the abstracts of philosophical papers are a clear example of what I mean. To me, these alternating sections of carefully worded academic abstracts, followed by a few words of sarcastic barb, feel too much like a solid dig at the other side instead of a thoughtful argument.
Another example of "yay-science"-ing: The post mentions with approval a suggestion to defund all university philosophy programs that don't lead to scientific advances. Of course, if philosophy were only useful for its impact on science and engineering, then that might be a good idea. But that premise is not obviously true. However, the post appears to accept it uncritically.
The opening quotation is flippant and hyperbolic, and is neither qualified nor argued for in the rest of the post.
The proposed curriculum reform is a smorgasbord of LW interests (yay LW!). Yet the post does not argue for the curriculum. Instead, it asserts that curricula need more X and less Y, where X sounds scientific and Y sounds prehistoric. This is what I'd call sloganeering.
Wording: Also in the curriculum bit, the post states that universities teach students to "revere" failed methods. Perhaps true, but unsubstantiated here. Also, I think the word "revere" is a boo-button for rationalists--we know we're no supposed to revere things, especially not old thinkers, so hearing that someone is revered presses a button and we say "Boo to old thinkers! Hooray for scientific progress!" (OK, that one might be just me.)
I think any of these would have been OK had the rest of the post been exceptionally meaty, but this one was not.
The 'thoughtful argument' parts are often hosted in other posts. I generally try not to write 20-page posts, but to break things into pieces. E.g. my reaction to abstract #3 is backed up here and here.
No, it doesn't.
Right, the purpose of this post isn't to argue that specific point. What's your view, here? That an article should argue for every claim it makes? I doubt that's what you intend, as that would mean that each article actually becomes a book.
Hmmm. Maybe I could give a lot more detail about why I made those specific recommendations in a discussion post or something.
Fair enough, I'll edit that.
It isn't remotely clear to me from the abstract that the author is "arguing about the definition" of knowledge at all.
Incidentally, I have noticed in that LWers often are not good at distinguishing between saying something novel about what X is, and changing the definition of X.
There is no need to write a 20-page post, let alone a book. But that doesn't mean your only remaining option is barb. Regarding the responses to those philosophical articles, you could have responded briefly yet earnestly.
As for the Russell quotation: No, I do not think an article should argue for every claim it makes. (It would not be a book; it would be a universe.) But the quotation was a dig at those self-important philosophers. That's why, I thought, it made the post seem applause-lighty.
I guess you're right that the post doesn't really approve of Glymour's suggestion. I mistakenly read your approval into it.
Thanks for keeping the tone of this thread reasonable.