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.

joaolkf comments on The Inefficiency of Theoretical Discovery - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: lukeprog 03 November 2013 09:26PM

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

Comments (109)

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

Comment author: joaolkf 05 November 2013 05:37:09AM 0 points [-]

Scientific method, reason, utilitarianism, logic, subjective and objective probability. Although if asked some well-educated people would concede these might have come from philosophy, they often will still see philosophy as a failed, diseased, mislead and/or useless enterprise instead as one of the most fundamental and useful fields.

A common overlapping pattern is to agree with a subset of philosophy's claims, say there's nothing more to be discussed and that, hence, philosophy is useless.

Comment author: somervta 06 November 2013 09:02:04AM 0 points [-]

I would love to see a justification of 'reason', myself. What work(s) would you point to as having made the breakthrough on reason?

Comment author: joaolkf 10 November 2013 05:44:59PM 1 point [-]

taps out for now

Comment author: ChristianKl 05 November 2013 08:59:51PM 0 points [-]

There a lot of basic work in proability came from mathematicians like Bernoulli and Laplace.

The same goes for the "scientific method". Most scientists just do whatever they feel make sense and that let's them use their toys.

Can you point to breakthroughs by academic 20th/21th century philosophers?

Comment author: joaolkf 10 November 2013 05:45:04PM 1 point [-]

taps out for now