You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

JoshuaZ comments on How SIAI could publish in mainstream cognitive science journals - Less Wrong Discussion

64 Post author: lukeprog 09 March 2011 09:17PM

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

Comments (76)

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

Comment author: JoshuaZ 11 March 2011 05:53:53AM 7 points [-]

Disagree. The area of philosophy I'm most familiar with (phil sci) is generally very easily understandable. I'm also not even sure this is a substantial objection. In many areas of learning, there are specialized vocabulary that take a lot of effort to understand. That's due to the deepness of the areas. Math is one example of this. I actually have more trouble reading papers in math, which is my own field, than I often do in biology (although this may be connected to the fact that I don't read highly technical papers in bio.) So even if your claim were true, it isn't at all clear to me why it would be relevant.

As a simple status issue, if you can get the philosophers to take you seriously, it will cause the people who aren't philosophers but who respect philosophy to take you more seriously.