Arguments supporting philosophical bankruptcy

[Laurens]

Bollocks, if you had some surveys asking questions like 'Do you think philosophy is an academic subject confined to complicated books and universities?' etc. and there was a trend towards answering 'yes' then you could justify your statements.

Take Galileo. He probably never attended the Vatican's committee meeting where they decided his astronomical theses disagreed with majority opinion (i.e. statistical norms), so he never saw any such statistics-based information. Nevertheless, wasn't he justified in relying on his own assumption that he was under house arrest for disagreeing with popular opinion?

A person's own perceptions and reasonings aren't invalid in themselves, just because there is no committee around to give approval. A pioneering scientist's theories aren't mistaken because he or she hasn't yet demonstrated them to others, or because others disagree. Similarly, a philosopher's reasonings aren't invalid because he or she is not part of a Borg consciousness.


.

You might actually be right in your statement, but without anything in support of it, it's not an argument. It's just your unsupported assertion of what most people believe. If you want people to be swayed by your argument then you need to show that when you say 'most people believe such and such' you can actually demonstrate that a sizeable percentage of people do believe that. Otherwise people like me will just say 'how can you say what most people believe without backing it up?'

If you want an argument you'd do well to support it with something, otherwise no one is going to be swayed.

You don't even have to cite studies, you could find some newspaper articles, something that supports your claims. Statistics showing abnormally low numbers of people enrolling on philosophy courses etc...

 

[Kelly Jones]

I'm curious how you distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge. Why don't you define these and give an example of each?

Yep, still waiting for that example. Otherwise, this is just nonsensical naval-gazing and worthless.

I apologise for the delay in replying. I was so convinced of the futility of continuing any engagement in this forum, that I'd decided to abandon the matter. But an old acquaintance has just reminded me of the thread, and seemed interested in it, so I'll persevere a while longer. Can't promise how much longer.

Your statement, that not providing an example of both types of knowledge is therefore a sign of making worthless arguments, is totally without foundation, and is just more (unnecessary) proof that I'm correct at how few people can distinguish between the only two types of valid rational knowledge. I mean, that you don't know, and assume that it's not common knowledge on a forum dedicated to reason......?

Anyway, to avoid repetition, here's a link to where I've discussed the subject in fullsome detail in this thread at naturalthinker.net/phpbb

The thread covers very carefully the rational underpinning of a priori (deduction-based) and a posteriori (induction-based) reasoning, starting of course with the foundation of all logic: the law of identity.

As an aside, if you wanted to participate in that forum thread, you'd need to wait a few weeks until the forum reopens. It's currently a break season there.


.

 

[Kelly Jones]

If you want an argument you'd do well to support it with something, otherwise no one is going to be swayed.

This thread is unfortunately very typical evidence.

You don't even have to cite studies, you could find some newspaper articles, something that supports your claims. Statistics showing abnormally low numbers of people enrolling on philosophy courses etc...

Thanks for further proof for the popularity of the belief that philosophy is understood only in academia. Surely you realise that if there are low enrolment numbers in academic philosophy courses, this might well be a sign that directly disproves the argument --- i.e. that people realise that philosophy is not being taught in universities at all.

Professorial verbiage is typically taken for philosophical nous, but it's complete charlatanry. Identical in its shabbiness to New Age mediums affirming how forgiving your recently departed mother is of your filial neglect.

Ah, the irony.

As for evidence....

I could point to any number of university science schools or academic philosophy departments, that teach the scientific method, and logical syllogisms respectively, but make radical errors, like mixing scientific theories into purely logical syllogisms, e.g. All swans are white birds, That bird is white; then foolishly assuming that the logical syllogism in structure must be faulty because it gave a false conclusion: That bird is a swan (but it's a dove).

Consider how many people spout the view that Goedel's incompleteness theorem is actually applicable to logic itself. Or how many people believe quantum physics proves that "nothing is certain" is an absolute law about the entire Universe (absolutely everything in existence). It's little better than religiousness. I could go on, but I find it all rather tiresome and boring.


.

 

[Laurens]

If you want an argument you'd do well to support it with something, otherwise no one is going to be swayed.

This thread is unfortunately very typical evidence.

Evidence of what? What kind of evidence?

You don't even have to cite studies, you could find some newspaper articles, something that supports your claims. Statistics showing abnormally low numbers of people enrolling on philosophy courses etc...

Thanks for further proof for the popularity of the belief that philosophy is understood only in academia. Surely you realise that if there are low enrolment numbers in academic philosophy courses, this might well be a sign that directly disproves the argument --- i.e. that people realise that philosophy is not being taught in universities at all.

Well, yeah I guess if you could show that philosophy courses have low enrolment numbers you could argue it both ways. In which case something more conclusive is necessary to settle it. You haven't shown anything.

Professorial verbiage is typically taken for philosophical nous, but it's complete charlatanry. Identical in its shabbiness to New Age mediums affirming how forgiving your recently departed mother is of your filial neglect.

Ah, the irony.

As for evidence....

I could point to any number of university science schools or academic philosophy departments, that teach the scientific method, and logical syllogisms respectively, but make radical errors, like mixing scientific theories into purely logical syllogisms, e.g. All swans are white birds, That bird is white; then foolishly assuming that the logical syllogism in structure must be faulty because it gave a false conclusion: That bird is a swan (but it's a dove).

Consider how many people spout the view that Goedel's incompleteness theorem is actually applicable to logic itself. Or how many people believe quantum physics proves that "nothing is certain" is an absolute law about the entire Universe (absolutely everything in existence). It's little better than religiousness. I could go on, but I find it all rather tiresome and boring.


.

I don't know what your point is.

People have always espoused nonsense and drawn illogical conclusions, its not something new. In fact I'd say it was probably more prevalent in the past. Does that mean philosophy has always been bankrupt? If not then what's changed?

 

[Noth]

<snip> I was so convinced of the futility of continuing any engagement in this forum, that I'd decided to abandon the matter...

Herein, again, lies the crux of what I think your issue is.
You had a preconceived notion you wanted to posit, didn't flesh it out well at all(No, really. You didn't.) Got some feedback that you felt you could do something with, but chose to see the criticism (valid criticism that's blunt is still valid criticism) as a personal affront (discussion mistake #1).
You then remarked that you felt some comments were rude, but proceeded to covertly (planned or accidentally) insult people back by a) not addressing the replies to the specific person but saying "Mr. X says..." and b) sticking to your sweeping generalisations and building on them, not realising that in discourse this leads people to assume you are including them into the equation.

Furthermore you've ignored, intentionally or otherwise, parts of replies that were valid remarks with which you could have done something, and instead chosen to highlight those bits that you could dissect and that you, in your reply to me for instance, seemed to miss the point of.

All in all your replies have the hallmarks of someone who does not like to be told that she's wrong (in part or as a whole) and will back away upset at the slightest notion of disagreement, proceeding to claim the other party "had no understanding" of what she meant.

I sincerely hope my analogy doesn't fit, and that you're better than that as I had been looking forward to a reply for a while during that time you

decided to abandon the matter

.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Hi all.

I concluded from the following arguments that there are few genuine philosophers nowadays.

Please qualify "genuine" - what do you mean by this?

1.
Most people believe philosophical knowledge is what you gain through learning concepts taught in universities and/or find in books, such that one's own philosophical understanding has no individual validity unless it fits into the conceptual molds and jargons prescribed by some external authority. Obviously this falls into the logical fallacy of relying on an external authority.

Yeah, this is an unfortunate consequence of the academic model. However, generally you need at least some grounding in previous thought, or else your home-brew philosophy might end up repetitive or ridiculous.

2.
Most people believe philosophy is about spouting big abstract words and being able to parrot their meanings (whether they understand the meanings is irrelevant, if the meanings are simply adopted).

If one is an idiot, I suppose, but I've encountered this.

3.
Most people believe words have no worth in philosophy unless you have found them in a "peer-reviewed" dictionary.

Word use has to be consistent or else there's no point in discussion - can't really talk to people unless you agree on the meaning of key terms.

4.
Most people believe concepts you have developed yourself are dubious.

They are. All concepts are dubious until they've been defended.

5.
Most people can't distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical knowledge.

I don't know about "most", but I know well what you mean.

6.
Most people believe the only valid kind of knowledge is derived through the senses, as if there is no such thing as individual perspective and interpretation, let alone thinking.

Well, how else do you propose to verify your thoughts except through the senses? Thinking something doesn't make it valid.

7.
Most people believe a concept or fact is dubious or useless, without consensus approval of it. This is called "thinking by committee", or "mob mentality".

You seem to be proposing some kind of concept of individual reality, that facts vary by what the person thinks of them. If you believe this, I propose you climb to the top of a building, think really hard that you can fly, and step off. Consensus is how we know we haven't come up with a ridiculous idea.

8.
Most people believe that thinking so deeply that your worldview becomes different to most other people's, is the same as a mental illness. They call this "thinking too much".

Well, that depends. If you honestly believed you could fly by the power of your mind that would be a mental illness. Being an intellectual snob with her own meaning for words who disagrees with everyone would just be annoying, not an illness. Being smarter then most people and having your own opinions would just be individual variance. I don't know you well enough to say which category you would fall into.

9.
Most people believe they can identify what genius is, and isn't, without actually being a genius. A corollary of this, is that it is morally and politically incorrect for any person to actually be intellectually superior to others. This is an interesting consequence of the political movement to make academic achievements less competitive, called by people like Charles McCleery and Celia Green "The Abolition of Genius".

I know, it's quite annoying. However, one can easily find ways to get around this. There will always be intellectuals to compete against.

10.
Most people believe it is fine to make statements about what knowledge is true and reliable, even to the point of attacking and slandering others, without having the strong intention of living according to their knowledge.

Oh, hypocrisy. I certainly know how this one goes, I've seen it all too often myself.

11.
Most people believe that simple, logical disagreements in intellectual discourse are a sign of arrogance, hatred and anger, and consequently become offended when their viewpoints are challenged.

A thousand times, yes. It's gotten to the point where I can barely talk to people for fear of offending their delicate sensibilities. I've certainly seen it on this board, where people will attack people for flimsy evidence of things they disagree with while accepting the same kind of evidence for their favored positions.

12.
Most people believe that if most people disagree with you, that you must be wrong.

Ad populum, as popular as usual. However, I have to ask you, how open are you to the possibility that you are indeed as wrong as people have been telling you? If you're not even willing to admit the possibility, then there's no point in talking to you whether you're right or wrong.

13.
Most people think there is an inherent and real separation between thinking and experiencing, as if thinking happens in an inner world, and experiencing happens in an outer world. Consequently, they believe thinking is subjective and fallible, while experiencing is objective and infallible. (This is another form of scientific materialism).

Well, what's the problem with this? You can't think away gravity, or the wall in front of you, or the car hurtling towards you. Reality makes it mark on you no matter what you think about it.