Why the hostility toward philosophy?

[Silmarien]

How does radical skepticism or the nature of causality or theories of mind put food on the table?

Theories of mind actually ought to, since one of the main issues there is the debate over free will. Even aside from the very personal stake everyone has in that question, there are significant political and ethical ramifications for how we view agency. (I am intrigued by the correlation between leftism and determinism, for example.)

 

[Tree of Life]

This piece, recently published in PNAS, alludes to the fact that some scientists are either suspicious of or hostile toward philosophy. It's been my experience that many nonbelievers are similarly suspicious and, on some occasions, perhaps even believers too (it's my opinion that the Philosophy subforum was closed mostly due to such suspicions). So my question here is why?—why is philosophy so often cast as something we no longer need, as something pointless, as a distraction?

In case you are wondering why this topic would be relevant to the Christian Apologetics subforum, it's worth noting that apologetics has long drawn upon philosophy for its best source material and that many of the discussions that go on here are themselves philosophical in character. Yet even some apologists turn their nose up at philosophy, at least implicitly, when they insist that "science can prove" God exists. Not all apologists do this, obviously, but a significant minority seem to take science as the primary starting point for the apologetic endeavour, so it's not a moot point.

I think that the main suspicion people have about philosophy is that people suspect that philosophy is boring. The original, European title for the first Harry Potter novel was: "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." But in America the editors insisted that the name be changed to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" because they knew that any book with "Philosopher" in the title would be unlikely to sell.

 

[Tree of Life]

Philosophical discussions are nice to have, but at the end of the day, takes a back seat to actual evidence.

That's quite an interesting philosophy.

It's your philosophy that tells you what counts as evidence and why evidence matters. And you didn't arrive at this philosophy because of any evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

How does radical skepticism or the nature of causality or theories of mind put food on the table?

Now science and its spinoffs really do hit us where we live.

Thats enough for most people to relegate philosophy to the drafty old brokedown building on the neglected end the mental campus, while science gets shiny new labs every year.

Yeah science gave us the iPad. What has philosophy EVER given us? I say this as one who holds a degree in philosophy!

 

[Dirk1540]

Theories of mind actually ought to

Do you think it would be beneficial sometimes for a psychiatrist to actually use theory of mind arguments to help an occasional patient? Suppose you have someone who is a stressed out mess because they fear that once their brain dies they cease to exist, maybe it would be a good move to try to sell that patient on dualism arguments! Or at the very least perhaps informing the patient that their theory is not without some good objections could give them some peace.

I worked with a guy once who blurted out a few times that life has no meaning, once your brain dies you’re gone. Same guy who once said that the only reason he doesn’t kill himself is because of the pain that would be involved ugh.

 

[Silmarien]

Do you think it would be beneficial sometimes for a psychiatrist to actually use theory of mind arguments to help an occasional patient? Suppose you have someone who is a stressed out mess because they fear that once their brain dies they cease to exist, maybe it would be a good move to try to sell that patient on dualism arguments! Or at the very least perhaps informing the patient that their theory is not without some good objections could give them some peace.

I would say no. I don't really think it's a psychiatrist's place to try to push any sort of metaphysical agenda, even if supposedly for the patient's own good. That can all too easily cross into dangerous territory, so the professional responsibility concerns are serious.

There are problems out there that secular therapy is simply not equipped to handle. I think what you're describing is one of them. (Honestly, if someone's having a genuine existential crisis over this, I don't think knowledge of alternative theories of mind is going to be enough anyway.)

 

[durangodawood]

I think that the main suspicion people have about philosophy is that people suspect that philosophy is boring. The original, European title for the first Harry Potter novel was: "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone." But in America the editors insisted that the name be changed to "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" because they knew that any book with "Philosopher" in the title would be unlikely to sell.

Ha. America.

Sorcerer > philosopher
Supernatural warfare > reasoned inquiry

But if they really wanted to sell books it should have been "Harry Potter and the Reality TV Star's Stone".

 

[Tree of Life]

Sorcerer > philosopher
Supernatural warfare > reasoned inquiry

I think it has more to do with why people read. People don't read in order to critically analyze themselves. They read in order to escape from the stress of daily life. What kind of person wants to come home from a long day's work at a stressful job and critically analyze themselves? Personally, I'd rather play Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[durangodawood]

Theories of mind actually ought to, since one of the main issues there is the debate over free will. Even aside from the very personal stake everyone has in that question, there are significant political and ethical ramifications for how we view agency. (I am intrigued by the correlation between leftism and determinism, for example.)

Oh yeah, I think thats completely fascinating too.

But I think most people see philosophy at an unresolvable stalemate on that issue, pending results from science on the nature of physical causality, emergence, brain function, and so on.

 

[Dirk1540]

I would say no. I don't really think it's a psychiatrist's place to try to push any sort of metaphysical agenda, even if supposedly for the patient's own good. That can all too easily cross into dangerous territory, so the professional responsibility concerns are serious.

I could definitely see the factor of professional lines being crossed.

Honestly, if someone's having a genuine existential crisis over this, I don't think knowledge of alternative theories of mind is going to be enough anyway.)

I’m a little torn on this one. I definitely see how if someone is in that bad of shape that their problems run deeper than philosophy arguments. But I’ve also seen how technical arguments have shattered some people’s beliefs. So if their stress is actually lying on top of a foundation of being 100% intellectually convinced that brain death is ultimate death, sometimes I wonder if it really can make a big difference. Perhaps not on a psychiatrist’s sofa but maybe just via everyday discussions. Maybe the results would just vary from person to person.

I know that I’m talking about a rare situation. But like I said I had someone mention suicide to me one time because they believed that the life of their brain is all that they are. I’ve had several other people tell me the same theory about brain death without saying it in a depressed/suicidal way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think it has more to do with why people read. People don't read in order to critically analyze themselves. They read in order to escape from the stress of daily life. What kind of person wants to come home from a long day's work at a stressful job and critically analyze themselves? Personally, I'd rather play Dungeons and Dragons.

...speak for yourself! Some of us actually do come home from work and pop open some deeply entrenched philosophical work by which to........rest our minds. I place myself in what I'm guessing is a relatively small minority group.

Ironically, I'll admit that if I could find a good group to intermingle with, I'd also be open to interlocuting through such lighter fare such as Dungeons and Dragons. But for some strange reason, reality tells me she just doesn't want to see me doing much of the latter ...

Still, maybe I need to start my own Philosophy and Dungeons and Dragons group. I wonder what the turn out would be for something like that? Two?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Which do you think is more autonomous, objectively speaking?

Neither. I see them as continuous and integrated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yeah science gave us the iPad. What has philosophy EVER given us? I say this as one who holds a degree in philosophy!

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I have never understood why people insist to draw some sort of line between Science and Philosophy. Science is merely a type of philosophy, and it is simply foolishness to insist the branch has ever superseded the tree. Even in more advanced scientific enquiry, it simply shades back into older Philosophy - look at Aristotle and Probability waves in Quantum Physics, or how Evolutionary Biology and Genetics largely reconceived Aristotlean Causes.

The very fact is that Science without Philosophy is simply ungrounded and unfounded. Everyone accepts criticism from Hume on the Problem of Induction, so modern Science inevitably frames itself as a Kuhnian Paradigm or in terms of Falsification or such. Empiricism holds the field, but when investigating anything in depth, it evaporates soon enough.

Even here, people have been saying 'Evidence' needs to take the lead. How do you decide what constitutes Evidence if not by Philosophic principles, and defended on like grounds? At heart, this is just Petitio upon Petitio. I am quite used to this, as Medicine has become enamoured of Evidence-Based Medicine; that determined expert opinion the weakest level of Evidence, yet must appeal to that to determine the grading of levels of Evidence anyway.

We humans are exceedingly silly creatures.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never understood why people insist to draw some sort of line between Science and Philosophy. Science is merely a type of philosophy, and it is simply foolishness to insist the branch has ever superseded the tree. Even in more advanced scientific enquiry, it simply shades back into older Philosophy - look at Aristotle and Probability waves in Quantum Physics, or how Evolutionary Biology and Genetics largely reconceived Aristotlean Causes.

The very fact is that Science without Philosophy is simply ungrounded and unfounded. Everyone accepts criticism from Hume on the Problem of Induction, so modern Science inevitably frames itself as a Kuhnian Paradigm or in terms of Falsification or such. Empiricism holds the field, but when investigating anything in depth, it evaporates soon enough.

Even here, people have been saying 'Evidence' needs to take the lead. How do you decide what constitutes Evidence if not by Philosophic principles, and defended on like grounds? At heart, this is just Petitio upon Petitio. I am quite used to this, as Medicine has become enamoured of Evidence-Based Medicine; that determined expert opinion the weakest level of Evidence, yet must appeal to that to determine the grading of levels of Evidence anyway.

We humans are exceedingly silly creatures.

I'm inclined to agree, with one addition: I think philosophy without science can be, and often is, similarly ungrounded. And I think that Ladyman and Ross argue this point compellingly, at least with regard to metaphysics. Of course there's plenty of room for debate over the details, but as I see it—and I think we might be in agreement here?—philosophy and science are not separate.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm inclined to agree, with one addition: I think philosophy without science can be, and often is, similarly ungrounded. And I think that Ladyman and Ross argue this point compellingly, at least with regard to metaphysics. Of course there's plenty of room for debate over the details, but as I see it—and I think we might be in agreement here?—philosophy and science are not separate.

The fun thing about Ladyman and Ross, if I'm reading their ontic structural realism correctly, is that it's effectively a form of radical Platonism. I do not know how else to interpret the claim that reality is composed of relations without relata--it looks like scientific language disguising what is in some ways a pretty ancient metaphysics. (I think a lot of the extreme forms of naturalism run into the same paradox--throw out everything but science, and you ultimately throw out everything but structure, and that puts you in a pretty anti-naturalist camp.)

Theories like OSR briefly made me a Pythagorean idealist, ironically enough, since I think that is the end result of a serious campaign of eliminativism, but in the end, I didn't see anything there that made it more compelling than the Neo-Aristotelian alternative. I don't think there's a way to adjudicate between them, and certainly not on scientific evidence that fits both models, so I tend to play with both.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm inclined to agree, with one addition: I think philosophy without science can be, and often is, similarly ungrounded. And I think that Ladyman and Ross argue this point compellingly, at least with regard to metaphysics. Of course there's plenty of room for debate over the details, but as I see it—and I think we might be in agreement here?—philosophy and science are not separate.

Science itself can only exist when a whole slew of suppositions are in play - such as the validity of repeatability or Empiricism and such, as it merely creates a simulacrum or model to test reality by. To use Science as a means to test Philosophy is merely to assume this model accurately reflects reality, which we have no way of really affirming. In essence, this would just be taking certain Metaphysical or Philosophic precepts as valid or veridical on grounds either of circular reasoning or as axiomatic. You cannot test something in such a manner, or it is the old story of Baron Munchausen pulling himself by his own hair from the quagmire. It is not for instance, as if we can disprove Idealism from Empiric observation or such. No matter what argument you throw at it, you can't argue that because your method gave results that such method was designed to give, that it has thus confirmed the method and its result.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Science itself can only exist when a whole slew of suppositions are in play - such as the validity of repeatability or Empiricism and such, as it merely creates a simulacrum or model to test reality by. To use Science as a means to test Philosophy is merely to assume this model accurately reflects reality, which we have no way of really affirming. In essence, this would just be taking certain Metaphysical or Philosophic precepts as valid or veridical on grounds either of circular reasoning or as axiomatic. You cannot test something in such a manner, or it is the old story of Baron Munchausen pulling himself by his own hair from the quagmire. It is not for instance, as if we can disprove Idealism from Empiric observation or such. No matter what argument you throw at it, you can't argue that because your method gave results that such method was designed to give, that it has thus confirmed the method and its result.

There are various stances one could take on the relationship between science and philosophy; my own is that science does have a significant bearing on many philosophical issues, and that engaging with science is not optional in many areas, such as in metaphysics. Exploring how this would work seems to be a task for metametaphyics, and there's some good work going on there.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There are various stances one could take on the relationship between science and philosophy; my own is that science does have a significant bearing on many philosophical issues, and that engaging with science is not optional in many areas, such as in metaphysics. Exploring how this would work seems to be a task for metametaphyics, and there's some good work going on there.

I am more Sceptic myself. I don't feel we can justify limiting anything on 'pragmatic grounds' that are themselves just a series of narrow assertions and assumptions on the validity of the Empiric. I see no compelling reason why a posteriori arguments should take precedence to a priori, if that itself is an a priori position held.

Are you aware or Pyrrhonism, or more clearly the five points of Agrippa? At heart, any argument either assumes something valid; rests on a circular argument; requires a progression to infinity of proofs; is highly relational and mutable depending on other factors, and as such cannot be affirmed without a relative caveat or in a specific case; and we are set with multiple models that are all contradictory and not as such confirmed.

This seems more people trying to refrain from drowning, while trying to maintain the ontologic and epistemic mess that an insistence on Naturalism entails.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There are various stances one could take on the relationship between science and philosophy; my own is that science does have a significant bearing on many philosophical issues, and that engaging with science is not optional in many areas, such as in metaphysics. Exploring how this would work seems to be a task for metametaphyics, and there's some good work going on there.

That sounds all fine and dandy, Arch...if we're wanting to build a 737 that actually keeps flying.

But, your paper, although interesting, is being presented to us while couched within the Christian Apologetics section of a Christian Forum, so while I can agree that "Free-Range" meta-physics is limited, there's still the problem that ... as long as God is a part of our epistemic makeup in the processes of Christian belief formation, along with the usual epistemic human applications, then this paper of yours will have limited value.

As for its application to the Philosophy and Science debate: I guess it's applicable. But again, its applicability will essentially apply to the doing of science, which it seems to me, Bryant's position on metaphysics is just another way of expressing a nuanced 'Methodological Naturalism,' which I agree with when doing science.