• Probability Question
    f_l = fraction of life-supporting planets that develop life
    f_i = fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence
    f_c = fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop communication     — Cuthbert
  • Probability Question
    Why would you be prejudiced against probability? Don't you wanna fix that or are you happy (with yourself)? — Agent Smith

    I'm quite happy with it as regards extraterrestrial life. Other people are prejudiced in favour of the possibility and would assign a 'best guess' of greater than zero. I'm happy with them doing that. We're both ignorant and both speculating. Neither of us knows anything. Neither of us is crazy. Either of us could turn out to be right or wrong. The speculation would last about a pint and then it's my round I guess. I mean, it's idle talk but not hopelessly vain or damaging idle talk.

    You never actually answered my question on what sort of data I should be collecting to estimate the probabilities in re aliens. You did say data will improve our guess, oui?

    I quoted three examples of data we might collect, drawn from Drake's work, and I linked to the SETI site which enlarges upon these and has assigned a hundred scientists to look for said data. SETI's refreshingly honest point is that, despite sixty years of looking for data, we have not found any that will improve upon our initial 'freshman' guesses. I'm doing the heavy lifting here. C'mon.
  • Probability Question
    OK - by 'the whole thing is baloney' I meant 'it's my hunch that there's no extraterrestrial life and we are wasting time looking for it'. I did not mean that mathematical models and probability theory are baloney. I hope that was clear from context. So, back to your question:

    How do you explain the fact that someone who understands mathematical probability can win casino games?

    Things that have a low probability can and do happen. It's only things with zero probability that never happen.

    Is that baloney?

    No, it's not baloney. People win jackpots. Every week someone wins the lottery jackpot, and also there is a very low probability of any particular person winning it. And it could turn out that aliens will visit next week. Then my 'best guess' of zero probability will turn out - from the accumulation of new data - to have been wrong. That's why I put "it's my prejudice" in brackets. It's my prejudice and in the absence of data it's as good as anyone else's equally uninformed prejudice. And by 'as good as' I mean equally valueless as science, which depends upon data.
  • Probability Question
    Now I think you're on a wee wind-up. From someone's believing that something is baloney it does not follow either that that thing is baloney or that the person thinks other things are baloney. That's why I put "it's my prejudice" in brackets and why I said nothing about casinos.
  • Probability Question
    I'm stating - not insinuating - that mathematical models will produce only speculative results when only speculative data are entered. Even when data are not merely speculative, sensitivity to assumptions remains an issue for many models.

    As for what data you need to collect - I think Drake led the way on that and the SETI institute page that I quoted from at length seems very sensible to me. It says quite frankly that the results are guesses and that no progress has been made on establishing data to put into the Drake equation. Personally, I think the whole thing is baloney (that's just my prejudice) but SETI's page has refreshing honesty.
  • Probability Question
    I recommend this article:

    https://www.americanscientist.org/article/misuse-of-models

    With modern computers, it is now possible for a graduate student or a practicing engineer to acquire a very complex computer code, hundreds of thousands of lines long, worked over by several preceding generations of scientists, with a complexity so great that no single individual actually understands either the underlying physical principles or the behavior of the computer code—or the degree to which it actually represents the phenomenon of interest. These codes are accompanied by manuals explaining how to set them up and how to run them, often with a very long list of "default" parameters. Sometimes they represent the coupling of two or more submodels, each of which appears well understood, but whose interaction can lead to completely unexpected behavior (as when a simple pendulum is hung on the end of another simple pendulum). One hundred years in the future, who will be able to reconstruct the assumptions and details of these calculations? — American Scientist
  • Probability Question
    So if we had data we could derive more accurate probabilities from them? — Agent Smith

    Almost right. If we had data we might be able to estimate probabilities rather than dressing up our speculations in mathematical terms.

    The Drake equation is an example of results depending entirely upon assumptions. We are tempted to think it can provide an estimate of probability, but it cannot and it does not claim to do so. It is a description of a method for estimating probability, if we had data about the variables. E.g., we have no ways of estimating these from observation:

    f_l = fraction of life-supporting planets that develop life
    f_i = fraction of planets with life where life develops intelligence
    f_c = fraction of intelligent civilizations that develop communication

    At the time of the meeting, essentially none of the seven factors in the equation was known excepting the first, the production rate of stars. Nonetheless, the attendees bandied about their best guesses for the other terms, concluding that the “freshman” rate was on the order of one. In other words, new transmitting societies appear once a year somewhere in the Milky Way. All that remains is to multiply this by the lifetime of such a broadcasting civilization. — SETI
    https://www.seti.org/drake-equation-index

    This is the process. We make 'best guesses'. We don't know whether a guess is good or not or how to evaluate one guess as better than another. But it's all we've got. We plug the results into the equation. We get a result. Now we have a number. We imagine that this number means something in relation to the question we posed - conveniently forgetting that it is the result of guesses of completely unknown quality. "All that remains" is not to multiply the result by some other number. What remains is the task of finding some data to put into the equation in the first place.

    The Drake equation is useful as a statement of (some of) the kind of data we would need to make an estimate.

    It has been sixty years since the Drake Equation was conceived. Have we nailed down more of the terms than the single one known in 1961? Sadly, no........There are 100 scientists at the SETI Institute, working on nearly 100 research questions. But each of these topics can be related to one of the terms in the Drake Equation. — SETI

    The problem is that we can be bewitched by mathematical models due to the ease with which we can get quantitative answers - forgetting that we do not have reliable data as input. It is a problem generally in science, not just in the search for extraterrestrial life. 'Sensitivity analysis' is useful - changing the assumptions to observe how the results change - but where there are no data at all and we have only assumptions then we do not even have parameters for sensitivity.

    One danger of the process is that a single quantitative answer may be seized upon and widely communicated and become a 'factoid', again forgetting that it is only mathematical cosplay for our guesses.
  • Probability Question
    Nor will counting Earth-like planets help. The answer we get will be exactly in accordance to the prior assumptions we put in.

    We need to know the probability of intelligent life evolving in an Earth-like environment. We've got a way of estimating this. We've counted (let's suppose) the Earth-like planets - the denominator. We also have a numerator: it's one, Earth. Let's suppose it's 1 in 10^10 (I have no idea about the number of Earth-like planets). But the probability might be higher. There might be life on other planets. So our estimate could be too low. Then let's make it a higher estimate. Let's say the probability is actually 100 in 10^10. Now we are ready to do some maths. If the probability of an event is 100 in 10^10, then what are the chances that in fact we see exactly 1 event out of 10^10? That is, how likely is it that we are alone and that Earth is unique? Now, this sounds hopeful. But it's not hopeful at all. We can do the maths. But we already assumed a hundred-fold increase in the probability over what we observe. All we have done is to take our speculation and dress it up with arithmetic: "Look, in all those similar planets, there must be intelligent life in hundreds more, not just ours!"

    So then we drill down further. We look at chemical reactions necessary for the creation of life and assign probabilities to these. And so on. At each stage we are working with one data point - Earth - and speculating what would happen in similar circumstances. We might do slightly better than pure speculation if we can set up comparisons (on Earth) of chemical reactions that go towards creating life. But at each stage of comparing Earth with other planets we will get out the assumptions we put in.

    The whole project suffers from lack of data. The maths is fine but it relies on assumptions that are crucial to the result. It's circular. It's a waste of time in terms of estimating the probability of seeing aliens. But it's useful in terms of understanding how to calculate probabilities.
  • Probability Question
    That said the subject we're discussing isn't a simple game of cards, dice, or coins — Agent Smith

    True. If you want to quantify probability then you need to compare one thing with another. One way to quantify a comparison is to express it as a proportion. So you can quantify the probability that we'll see aliens in the next ten years just as you can quantify the probability that you'll catch a cold in the next two years. The difference is that in one case you have some data to start with. In the other you have just speculation. The answer you get out will depend entirely on the assumptions you put in.

    Let's say that there's a 50% chance that aliens will be observed on some day in the next ten years. You can work backwards from the calculation I gave above and work out the probability that, on any given day, aliens will be observed. That calculation is fine. But you will have made the whole thing up. The 50%, the ten years, and therefore the daily probability will be entirely speculative. It might be 50% in ten years or in fifty or a hundred.

    It's like this with the aliens:

    The probability that on a given day we'll see aliens is p. 0 < p < q.
    The entirely made-up probability that we'll see them in the next ten years is 50%. It could be 30% in fifty years or 90% in five hundred. We are just guessing. But let's stick with 50% in ten years. It's nothing to do with equilibrium and agnosticism, because the choice of the number of years, ten, twenty or a hundred, will affect the calculation and we can be as agnostic about five hundred years as about five years.
    There are roughly 3,650 days in ten years.
    Now, the probability that we won't see aliens is 1 - p.
    So the probability that we won't see aliens on any day in ten years is (1 - p) ^ 3,650.
    Now, we've decided arbitrarily that (1 - p) ^ 3,650 is 50%, that is, it's as likely that we'll see aliens as not in ten years.
    What is the probability that we'll see aliens on at least one day? Answer: about 0.00019.

    Note: that figure, 0.00019, is entirely the result of an arbitrary choice about how long we must wait for us to have even chances of seeing or not seeing aliens. It has nothing to do with the likelihood of seeing aliens. It has proceeded entirely from our speculation.

    We have no data. And we can make up data. But we cannot then say anything about the probability of any event.

    So, yes, mathematical probability can be assigned to any supposed event. But in the absence of data, we are just assigning whatever value we want. It's fantasy and fiction and not to be confused with truth in any way whatsoever.
  • Probability Question
    @Agent Smith I could have a go. But I'm not interested in aliens. I'm only vaguely interested in Trump's form at the bookies. I'm interested in distinguishing sensible from non-sensible talk about probability and I've done some reasonably heavy lifting on that question.
  • Probability Question
    If I say there's a 20% chance of Trump winning the next elections what exactly do I mean? — Agent Smith

    You might just mean that you'd be willing to lay a bet against Trump winning, without being able to say why you'd be willing to do that.

    But you might have studied his form, like a bookie. He's only run one race, so you need other data. E.g. you could look at his weight and health records, how similar horses from the same stable of similar levels of fitness have fared in the past, which jockey is going to ride Trump in the race etc etc. You'd have to take account of the risk that he would be nobbled by the Chinese or given illegal performance enhancing drugs by the Russians. Aliens visiting is a similar question. We have no observational data. But we can look at (for example) how many similar planets to Earth there are in the galaxies we know about. We can quantify our assumptions. Then, and only then, can we begin to think about mathematical probability, let alone conditional probability.
  • Probability Question
    To try to put it succintly, it's reasonable to be agnostic about alien contact ten years from now, but not ten minutes from now. But I can't see what's driving that intuition. — RogueAI

    Now I can suggest the hiding denominator. We're thinking about probability, not (yet) conditional probability.

    What are the chances of you catching a cold some time in the next two years? Pretty high. What are the chances of you catching a cold today or in the next week? Still something, but much lower. That's the intuition we have and it's largely correct.

    It works like this.

    Suppose the chance of catching a cold today is one in one thousand, as calculated from the known incidence of common cold (made up for this example). Then the chance of not catching a cold today is 999/1000, that is, a tiny bit less than 1. Now, the chance of you not catching a cold today and also not catching one tomorrow is 999/1000 x 999/1000. Each day that passes, the total is multiplied by 1-less-a-tiny-bit. So the probability of not catching cold goes down gradually, You can work out how long it would take for the chances of getting a cold at some time as 1/2 or 50%. It works out to be a little less than two years, meaning that in a two year period you've got about an evens chance of getting a cold. There are some assumptions, for example, it is assumed that being cold-free for a while does not in itself alter your chances of getting a cold.

    Now, the whole calculation depends upon a reasonably good estimate of the incidence of the common cold and on independence of events. How does that translate to observation of aliens? Not great. If we go by past experience then the number of days on which aliens have been observed is zero. That's the numerator. The number of days we choose as our denominator can be as big or as small as we like. The resulting proportion will still be zero. The estimated probability of not seeing an alien is therefore 1. So, assuming that our past observations are a good measure of the probability of seeing an alien, then we would predict that the chances of not seeing an alien in the next ten years is 1 x 1 x 1 x 1.... for 3,650 times, which still equals one. In common language: no-one's ever seen an alien and we've no reason to think they ever will.

    That is as far as mathematical probability will get us, when we measure it as a number of outcomes (days when aliens are seen) divided by a number of events (total days, whether aliens seen or not).

    But that doesn't give an answer to the OP. There are other concepts of probability. For example, there was no written European record of black swans before 1700. So what was the probability of someone recording a sighting of a black swan? By the argument above, the probability was zero. But clearly the probability was not zero. Someone saw a black swan and made a written record of it and now there are many such records. Black swans existed, Europeans travelled, saw them, wrote down their experience. We are no longer discussing mathematical probability. We are discussing the plausibility of a set of events such that some hitherto non-existent outcome will come to exist.

    There may be a place for conditional probability in this question. But so far we have only progressed to a measure of mathematical probability which yields the answer zero. If we want to invoke conditional probability then we need (at least) to begin with some measure that is between zero and one and is not zero and is not one. And by 'measure' I mean a proportion with a numerator and denominator that are both countable items.
  • Probability Question
    Why are the hypotheses nonsense? — Agent Smith

    Because a probability (in maths) is a proportion and a proportion has a numerator and denominator. In the case of the OP the denominator is not defined. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/766026

    No defined denominator -> no measure of probability.
    No measure of probability -> no conditional probability.

    Each one of these probabilities (use the variable p) can be such that
    1. p = 50% (agnostic)
    2. p < 50% (unlikely)
    3. p > 50% (likely)     — Agent Smith

    50% means, for example, 1 out of 2 or 500 out of 1,000. '1' and '500' would perhaps refer to the number of times an alien is spotted. What does '2' refer to? Impossible to say. You are trying to fit a non-mathematical concept of probability into mathematical terms.
  • Tarot cards. A valuable tool or mere hocus-pocus?
    My dream-catcher has not caught any dreams yet. Does anyone know a reliable model?
  • Probability Question
    ↪RogueAI

    I think you are running ahead too fast. Before we think about conditional probability we need to think about probability. For the kind of calculation you have in mind, probability is one number on top of another to make a proportion. The number on the top is (let's suppose) the number of times that aliens are seen in the next ten years. That number can be 1 to begin with, for example, because that's the least that we're interested in; later, we would be interested in whether aliens are seen more than once. Now how about the denominator on the bottom? We want to know whether we see aliens exactly once out of ..... what? Well, I suppose, out of all the times we don't see aliens plus all the times we do - that makes all the times we see or we don't see aliens. OK, how do we count that number of times? Take today, for example. How many times have I seen aliens? That's easy: it's zero. Now how many times have I not seen aliens? The question doesn't seem to make sense. But until we can make sense of that denominator and so hypothesise a proportion, then we cannot even talk about probability, let alone conditional probability.

    The problem is that you are not talking about probability in a mathematical sense at all. You are talking about plausibility. That is, do we think it's credible that we might see aliens, given that we've never seen them before? Well, that depends partly upon whether there are aliens.
  • Cupids bow
    Cupid is Roman. Eros is Greek. — Bitter Crank

    Sure, but the ancients weren't too fussy about the nationality of the gods and perhaps we shouldn't be either. "Eros, draw back your bow" is not a great lyric, and if you want more than one Cupid then pluralising Eros is a nightmare in English. I don't think the pigeon on his left wing in the photo is part of the myth but it would be a nice addition.
  • Problems with Assisted suicide
    There are plenty of people ready to help voluntarily. — Vera Mont

    That means they would be happy to receive the obligation, if I place it. But they may not take the initiative. They may not volunteer, in that sense. I must take the initiative by requesting them to kill me. Of course many kind and humane people will be happy to receive the obligation and accede to my request.

    The question is: do I have the right to place such an obligation on someone, even if they would be ready to take it on? For health workers: do they have the right to accept the obligation, when they have a duty to preserve life and not to take it?

    It's inhumane to stand by and watch people suffer, as you say. It is outrageous that the law punishes the humane alternative of assisting suicide. And it is outrageous of me to expect someone to end my life when their general and sometimes professional duty would be to hinder me from suicide. There's outrage all round and all of it has some justification.
  • World/human population is 8 billion now. It keeps increasing. It doesn't even matter if I'm gone/die
    @universeness OK, but it takes all sorts to make a world. Every project team needs someone whose main contribution is to point out the flaws and say it'll never work. That's what makes us scrutinise and challenge and improve.
  • Cupids bow
    I would forget the whole thing and go back to directing the traffic at Piccadilly Circus.
  • Problems with Assisted suicide
    I would say I have the right to end my own life. But I am not sure that I can place an obligation on anyone else to help me do it. There may be people who are under obligation to hinder me, if they can, because of other duties they have, e.g. to preserve life. I'm not sure that I can remove that obligation, if it exists. Unfortunately, the consequence of this view is that if I am unable to end my own life then I shall be left helpless and in avoidable suffering. So I don't have an answer. But I think those are the main outlines of the problem.
  • Higher or other dimensions.
    Mathematics teachers apply the thought experiment to lower dimensions than three, e.g. imagine what a circle would look like if we lived in two dimensions and could only see it side-on or standing on the circumference or inside. Then the experiment is applied to higher dimensions, suggesting that if we lived in four dimensions we could make distinctions that we are unable to make in our actual three-dimensional world. We cannot imagine what a four-dimensional cube would look like to a four-dimensional observer. But we can imagine that the experience would be as different as our observation of a circle is from that of a person who lived in two dimensions. Just as a two-dimensional observer could calculate the nature of a circle, without being able to observe one as a consistent figure, so we can calculate the dimensions of a four-dimensional cube and translate partial views of it into our three-dimensional experience and our two dimensional drawings.

    I think an early example, not using the expression 'higher dimensions', is Plato's cave. We do not live in a cave. But we stand in relation to knowledge just as people who live in a cave would stand in relation to those who experience sunlight and sky. In that sense, it is as if we live in a cave. We now have only unreliable opinion and shifting belief. We have the means of reaching the higher dimension of knowledge but we are unwilling to accept that reality is different from our daily experience.
  • World/human population is 8 billion now. It keeps increasing. It doesn't even matter if I'm gone/die
    Like do people seriously wake up and think "Damn, I will not have enough of an impact to alter the entire universe irreversibly this is so sad". — khaled

    I believe that some people seriously do, yes. Given that there are eight billion of us, then you could select almost any thought, however outlandish, and it will likely be the case that some people seriously wake up and think that thought.
  • World/human population is 8 billion now. It keeps increasing. It doesn't even matter if I'm gone/die
    even if there were a *grand scheme* life would still be pointless — praxis

    Ach! I hadn't thought of that. I thought the grand scheme, were it to be grand enough, might give life a point. Perhaps it's too early to judge. We don't yet know what the grand scheme is in relation to which we don't matter. When we find out, it may reveal that life is not as pointless as people tend to think.
  • World/human population is 8 billion now. It keeps increasing. It doesn't even matter if I'm gone/die
    .
    Everything we do will eventually just crumbles to the dust. — niki wonoto

    Thanks for the heads-up. I shall bear it in mind.

    ....in the grand scheme of things — niki wonoto

    I thought your post was leading to the conclusion that all is vanity and all is pointless. Then in the very last sentence you spring the news that there is a grand scheme of things. But you leave us hanging in suspense about what the grand scheme is. Please tell more. What is the grand scheme of things and how did you find out about it? It might cheer us up.
  • Anybody know the name of this kind of equivocation / strawman informal fallacy?
    Basically, I claimed to deduce G[od] exists, because Lan[guage] is only produced by m[inds], Lan[guage] exists and G is an m[ind]. — Hallucinogen

    Santa exists because Gifts are only produced by Givers; Gifts exist and Santa is a Giver.

    The premisses are everything after the word 'because' and these are ok. A gift does entail someone's giving something, that is, a giver. And there are such things as gifts. And Santa is famous for being a giver. But he's a special kind of giver. He's the kind of giver that doesn't exist. And there are many other givers. The conclusion 'Santa exists' does not follow. Reframed as an Aristotelian syllogism it would be an Undistributed Middle.

    "But if God doesn't exist, who wrote the laws of physics?" This is analogous to asking: if Santa didn't put the toys under the tree, then who did? In the case of the toys, it was Dad. In the case of the laws of physics, opinions vary. God is in the line-up but is only one suspect out of several mentioned in this thread.
  • Tarot cards. A valuable tool or mere hocus-pocus?
    I sometimes cook up a magic potion in my kitchen and I use things like eye of needle, tooth of comb and finger of fish. I'm hoping to become king of Scotland without actually harming anyone.
  • Why are you here?
    Evolution favours efficiency: maximum benefit for minimum effort compared to the next best alternative. This explains why the best adapted animal on the planet imports garlic from the other side of the world rather than growing it in his garden. It's cheaper and more efficient that way.
  • The best arguments again NDEs based on testimony...
    There is a problem of just what is to be established or refuted? I mean, compare these:

    A. I had a clear, sane and reliably reported perception of conversing with my dead grandfather.
    B. I was conversing with my dead grandfather.

    Verifiable 'A' s are interesting enough but do not necessarily count as evidence for 'B'. For B, I'm not sure what would count as evidence.
  • The best arguments again NDEs based on testimony...
    The counterweight to NDE is all of the times people have lost consciousness, had convulsions, were in critical conditionc(MI/CVA), etc. and didn't have an NDE — Agent Smith

    I don't think that follows. The absence of a phenomenon in one context does is not in itself evidence of absence in another. The absence of turtles on the Isle of Arran does not count as evidence that are no turtles in the Seychelles. My failing to see a rainbow does not count as evidence that you haven't seen one.
  • The best arguments again NDEs based on testimony...
    Secondly all we can do is count all the people who were clinically dead for a time being and if less than 20% of them have NDEs why can't that suggest imagination being involved to pacify the ego during a crisis whether or not they mentally realize it? — TiredThinker

    Exactly. It might suggest exactly what you say. And equally it might not. There is no way of empirically distinguishing those two cases. So it's speculation rather than a project of empirical science.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    Fair enough. That would be a case for saying to my visitor - "Well, I believe there are no such things as £19 notes but I can't prove it and in fact I don't know." Again, I would be tripped up by your theory. Because, of course, I do know. And if there's any doubt I can prove it. The sample statement is exactly what I would say about £100 notes. Honestly, I'm not sure where there are £100 notes. But if a theory of evidence and proof cannot distinguish between my states of knowledge about £19 vs £100 notes then it's an inadequate theory.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    A challenge — RussellA

    No. Just everyday proof - as I say, outside the philosophy schoolroom. Think how you would sincerely answer a visitor's question whether there are twenty pound notes and their second question whether there are nineteen pound notes. If you hesitate for purely theoretical reasons over the second question then you are tripping over your own theory and not doing them any service at all. You know there are no £19 notes and you can prove it whenever it might be needed.
  • Fibonacci's sequence and Emergence.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GkxCIW46to

    In this video Mathologer explains why the two spirals running clockwise and counter-clockwise in a sunflower head end up in ratios corresponding to the Fibonacci sequence.

    There are similar sequences in nature, e.g. Lucas sequences. https://r-knott.surrey.ac.uk/Fibonacci/lucasNbs.html
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    you cannot prove that £20 notes don't exist in the world. — RussellA

    That's because they do. I can prove that £19 notes don't exist in the world. I mean, really I can. Outside the philosophy schoolroom. And if it can be done outside - but I am prevented from doing it inside by some theory - then I think it's the theory that is probably at fault, not the proof.
  • In what sense does Santa Claus exist?
    it's not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. — RussellA

    Is that true? I thought I had £20 in my wallet. I looked and there was £0. I think I just proved something doesn't exist. The 'something' was £20. Its non-existence was proved by inspection.
  • The best arguments again NDEs based on testimony...
    Why would most people's not having an experience count as evidence against some people's having it? Most people haven't experienced zero gravity. But some people have. That's a general point about evidence and experiences, not specifically about NDE.

    One point about a lot of people near to death is that they actually die and we have no idea what they experienced (if anything). It could be that everybody has NDE when they are on the point of death and that of those people very few make it back to life to tell the tale. People who report not having NDE were simply not close enough to death for the experience to kick in. That's a particular point about NDE and can never be substantiated or falsified. So it doesn't count as empirical science. Nor does its negation. To assert it or deny it is equally speculation.
  • What does "irony" mean?
    Alanis gets an unfair bad rap for calling non-irony irony. Nelly Furtado told us she was like a bird and she could fly away - not so. Aloe Blacc still claims he needs a dollar, although I'm pretty sure he's reasonably well off. The Beatles assured me that She Loves Me, which turned out to be not quite the case. But nobody complains about them.
  • The 2020 PhilPapers Survey
    We would say “what a joke, get your shit together geology" — DingoJones

    Would we? How superficial of us, thinking that unanswered questions mean sloppiness.

    says more about Pinker — DingoJones

    Pinker is a different philosopher, distinguished by his large mop of curly hair. Peter Singer has lost a lot of his hair, along with a big slice of his income.

    I should have used some emojo’s I guess. — DingoJones

    :flower:
  • The 2020 PhilPapers Survey
    I agree, that is why ive attempted a distinction between all of that and academic philosophy. — DingoJones

    I don't think academic vs non-academic is the place to put the boundary. Peter Singer is an academic, for example. There is a lot of woolly thinking outside the academe and a lot of sharp thinking inside it.

    But I have some sympathy with your complaint. I admit I graduated in 1979 with the thought - "Now Wittgenstein has proved the vacuousness of metaphysics I suppose that's the end of it." But still we debate whether the lump of clay and the statue are one thing or two. It's partly because the confusions arise from deep problems with our thought and language which will repeatedly resurface. I'm prepared to admit that it's partly a desire to play with ideas just because they are there. You put it more derogatorily but I don't entirely reject the complaint.
  • The 2020 PhilPapers Survey
    Centuries on some of these! — DingoJones

    Millenia. I'm thinking about Athens. The philosopher can be seen as a wishy washy airhead, as you say - Thales falling into a well because he's looking up at the stars. Another stereotype is the philosopher as undermining common sense and received wisdom and morality - Socrates corrupting the young by questioning accepted values. A third image is of the philosopher as an intellectual conjuror and trickster - the Sophist, able to persuade us that black is white. Perhaps there is room also for the one who is a careful thinker - and the world will be a better place when the rulers become careful thinkers or careful thinkers become rulers (to adapt Plato).

    There is yet another category, which is the philosopher living their philosophy of the good life - the sage, prophet or mystic. That is very out of fashion, although I would cite Peter Singer as a great example of the rare breed.
Home » Cuthbert