Latest in verbal tilt creationism. https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/22/natural-selection-is-not-an-explanatory-mechanism/ …pic.twitter.com/yFpLwWgvGS
-
There's no "opportunity cost," b/c working scientists can ignore most of this stuff, just like they ignore pure mathematics, while philosophers specialize in these issues. Though sometimes conceptual insights from math or philosophy do have unanticipated relevance for science.
I used to argue this view but now I'm pretty skeptical even about it. What's some cases where philosophers made philosophical input that turned out to be very useful to science? How often does this happen considering the sheer amount of talent in phil depts? Seems like huge waste
-
-
Re. talent. Philosophers are quite smart, and so their talents could surely be put to some better use than arguing about pointless shit. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/?p=3925 pic.twitter.com/yP1k1Uq3zl
-
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the things philosophers are concerned with are pointless b/c they aren't (directly) useful for science. Do you you think the proof of Fermat's last theorem was useless & Andrew Wiles wasted his talent? Not useful for science.
-
After philosophical issues are resolved and scientists adopt a certain theoretical approach, it's easy to forget the role philosophizing played in advancing science. Two generations of psychologists were behaviorists for philosophical reasons...
-
Behaviorism wasn't defeated so much by new empirical findings as by philosophical arguments about the legitimacy of postulating not-directly-observable cognitive processes.
-
Basic scientific practices that we take for granted now—like the controlled experiment (16th century)—were considered illegitimate when first proposed, and had to be defended by philosophical arguments. Now we've forgotten the controversy, but philosophizing was important.
-
In the same sense, the divide between computationalism and connectionism wasn't dissolved by new empirical findings either, but first by intense philosophizing. Huge breakthroughs were brought by computational power and technology (revival of artificial networks).pic.twitter.com/tXmuIUGokx
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Philosophy can help science to hold its ground and point to promising directions when things cannot be solved by empirical advancements yet.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
IIRC, some philosophy of mind types have collaborated with scientists on papers in the past, but analytic philosophy often seems like pointless sophistry. A philosophy prof argued that himself a few years ago.https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/06/philosophy-is-a-bunch-of-empty-ideas-interview-with-peter-unger.html …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The thirst of Philosophers is unstoppable. You can't prevent them from entering the field with empirical arguments about things as mundane as usefulness
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.