One important aspect of academia is that it is a social environment in which researchers converse with one another, sharpening arguments and discarding mistakes — jgill

You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine.

You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine. — Hillary

No. I have been in academia. Many of us listen and respect each other.

Okay, imagine you live during the Middle Age and try to understand the world around you. Would you study the thoughts of the many ecclesiastics around you? Would you criticize bits of their theories or would you start from scratch? This example is a bit extreme but do you get my point? If you've found a method that is totally different from what already exists, it doesn't make sense to try and criticize a theory that uses another method. That's exactly why creation-evolution debates are pointless to me. — Skalidris

I get what you're saying but I didn't have in mind so much that a philosopher should focus on working within and/or critiquing the ruling paradigm of her day, but should become aware of the whole history of thought. So, perhaps it could be said that many academics today are too narrowly focused on contemporary debates while ignoring the evolution of philosophical thinking. On the other hand it could be said that some moments of philosophical thought are rightly thought to be mistaken and/ or unlikely to yield any further conceptual progress, for example dualism, nominalism and platonism.

Is your "independent thinker" aware of philosophical history or not, because I think that is a crucial point to consider.

You have a naive picture of academic climate. Mostly it's thunder, rain, and storm, with occasional sunshine. — Hillary

Silly boy. I spent thirty enjoyable years in that environment. But admittedly I was not locking intellectual horns with Nobel laureates.

In an academy where nothing happens yes. But look if you put a new theory up. A theory with great potentiality but against established standard...

In an academy where nothing happens yes. But look if you put a new theory up. A theory with great potentiality but against established standard... — Hillary

I do not agree.

Silly boy. I spent thirty enjoyable years in that environment. But admittedly I was not locking intellectual horns with Nobel laureates. — jgill

Silly man... :lol:

You're free to! There is jealousy, career-loss fear, inability and incapability to understand, competition. Where in academy did you stay?

But admittedly I was not locking intellectual horns with Nobel laureates. — jgill

Exactly! And there the viciousness has a grip.

You're free to! There is jealousy, career-loss fear, inability and incapability to understand, competition. Where in academy did you stay? — Hillary

Like every profession.

Like every profession — Jackson

Ah! You see?

He is right though. In modern science, philosophy, or theology, very few original genius thinkers can be found. Most are mediocre, grey conformists, afraid to stick their heads out because of careers or loss of esteem. No easier life than the mediocre life. — Hillary

Why do you think you are capable of making this judgment about others?

Bullocks! That's your envy speaking. Or your blind obedience to the status quo. Like you think, scientific progress is never made. It are exactly the geniuses, the enlightening new insights, sending the standard home, that cause paradigm shifts, however much you might not like that. — Hillary

Not at all. Scientific progress is made in a community, by discussion with other scientists. Of course there are rare geniuses, but if science would depend on them no progress would be made. There are scores of under laborers, fine tuning ideas. Why would I be envious? I am part of such a community, unlike some others here.

Did we also invent cars by improving horse carriages? — Skalidris

No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance.

By the way do we know each other? I mean I don't know you but you seem to know me so well, crazy thing... — Skalidris

Yes, I know you quite well. You pop up around the forum a lot. Legion your name is, for you are many.

Most knowledge in philosophy, which I see as a way to have a global vision of the world, whereas other disciplines are more specific, philosophy would try to see the "bigger picture". I don't assume I should explain what a contradiction in logic is, should I? And yes, they're always contradictions in theories, or else knowledge would never evolve, but that doesn't mean we see it immediately. And yes, you can count inconsistent theories as knowledge, but then they have contradictions. — Skalidris

Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? International relations scholars might have a global vision, as o earth systems scholars, but in a different way. Do you mean a philosopher should combine all of those, or is there a specific bigger picture she should have? Theories are generally not counted as knowledge. What you describe is generally not considered knowledge, but seems more akin to worldview. That is no problem, I am not here to quibble about words but it is good to be precise in what we are talking about. I would still like to invite you to think about the question posed above, what kind of global vision should a philosopher aspire to?

What if the independent thinker is a scientist as well? Even better, what if their theories have the approval of the scientific community? (in the sense that they approve the scientific part of the theory). However, I agree with you, it wouldn't be science, it wouldn't be philosophy, maybe perhaps another discipline that doesn't exist yet? What's wrong with that? Why would it mean it isn't noteworthy? — Skalidris

But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. Kant, a towering figure of Western thought, did not conceive of his thoughts all alone. He was employed at university, he got to read the metaphysics of Wolff and Leibniz, he was challenged especially by the works of Hume. Had it not been for all of those, Kant would never produce his works.

In a bit I am going to discuss a paper in a small group of researchers. I did before and asked the person working on a research grant a thorny question. Two weeks later he came to me knocked on my door and said "hey, good question, I addressed it in the research proposal!" I gave him a thumbs up. Now, when he gets that proposal he might have gotten it, partly due to addressing my question. Otherwise maybe a commission member would have asked it and he would have had no answer and he would not have gotten the grant. Perhaps. Or they would have been asked one of the 1000 other questions posed to him by others that he also addressed in the proposal, due to other seminars and lectures he participated in. Eventually the proposal might be granted giving him the opportunity to write a book. Maybe that will be a pathbreaking study, perhaps, emboldened by all the tiny inputs provided to him by those under laborers. A thousand ifs, but that is how science and philosophy work. Could you skip those steps? Perhaps if you are an exceedingly rare genius, if they exist. Otherwise, a simple 'no' is the answer.

a lot of people would be wiser and the question isn't interesting. — Skalidris

Obviously.

My question is more about which method seems to lead to the wisest knowledge. — Skalidris

Do you mean between spending a lot of time thinking, writing, and actively exploring the world ... and pursuing an academic career?
If I understood well, talking with philosophy professors, their credentials, etc. you were not sure if all that get them closer to wisdom. Right? If so, then ... yes, it is right! :smile:

Pursuing an academic career in any field does not make you necessarily an expert in that field. Professors have to know well the material tey are teaching. Even "by memory". A math professor is not necessarily a good "problem solver" himself. A IT professor is not necessarily a good programmer --also a "problem sover"--himself. What makes a good "problem solver" is the ability to analyse a problem and think about (logically or using imagination or intuition), design and produce a solution himself. It requires a lot, a lot of practice, with which one acquires experience and becomes an expert.

The same happens in the field of philosophy.

Pursuing an academic career in philosophy -- e.g. graduating from a University-- doesn't make one a philosopher. I believe that a lot if not most of the great philosophers of the past we know were self-taught, i.e. they were not teached philosophy in a school or under a teacher, in a systematic way and for a long period (as today is done in Universities). What makes a philosopher is what you said about "independent thinkers" --BTW, I like and use the word "thinkers" myself-- namely, spending a lot of time thinking, writing, and actively exploring the world .. And those who are pursuing or have pursued an academic career may well do that themselves.

Why do you think you are capable of making this judgment about others? — Tobias

It's not a judgement. It's the truth. Especially in physics. Many attempts to give a diverging view is cut off, banned, or closed to further giving the idea space. If you have a career in physics and you promote a genial idea, one not helps to explore it. On the contrary, competition, self-righteousness, envy, career, etc. limit the idea, contrary to the scientific imperative to know. It's a sad situation, on the forums and academia world even more. The Perimeter institute in Canada seems to be a welcome exception. It's a sad sad situation...

Of course there are rare geniuses, but if science would depend on them no progress would be made — Tobias

Not in quantity no. But in quality. All physicists love the genius physicist. When they're dead...

No, no kidding. The Dutch Erik Verlinde got a 2 000 000 (no kidding!) euro prize for a so-called revolutionary theory on emergent gravity and dark matter and energy, not realizing he has it backwards. A genius, so is thought. It turns out he's no genius after all. But he got the origin debate of gravity, DM and DE redirected and refreshed. He might have caused a paradigm shift. How will a community cause such a shift. It's mostly a genius, and probably an outside genius, causing the shift because they're not bound.

Great and that proves what? I looked him up Erik Verlinde is a prof at the University of Amsterdam. The first publication is this one: "Brouwer, M. M., Oman, K. A., Valentijn, E. A., Bilicki, M., Heymans, C., Hoekstra, H., Napolitano, N. R., Roy, N., Tortora, C., Wright, A. H., Asgari, M., van den Busch, J. L., Dvornik, A., Erben, T., Giblin, B., Graham, A. W., Hildebrandt, H., Hopkins, A. M., Kannawadi, A., ... Visser, M. (2021). The weak lensing radial acceleration relation: Constraining modified gravity and cold dark matter theories with KiDS-1000. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 650, [A113]. https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202040108

It is written by many people, so many not even all the names are listed. The man is a genius of course, but not independent. Just a wonderful professor who probably works in the way I outlined to Skalidris. He was not drinking his cognac in front of his fireplace dreaming up he revolutionary theory but worked on it within a comunity of which he is probably the leading light.

Edit: why do you think he gets the 2000 K? Not to buy a villa in South of France... he gets it to set up a research community, so that his ideas can be expanded upon and refined because they are apparently promising.

The man is a genius of course, but not independent — Tobias

What genius is? We're all geniuses in principle. It are the circumstances that make it flourish. An academic milieu is not really stimulating. Verlinde has it the wrong way round by the way. Two million euros thrown away.

Edit: why do you think he gets the 2000 K? Not to buy a villa in South of France... he gets it to set up a research community, so that his ideas can be expanded upon and refined because they are apparently promising. — Tobias

And who pays? You really think he doesn't take a nice part of the pie? I saw his car. Not a cheap one...

What genius is? We're all geniuses in principle — Hillary

No we aren't. A genius is someone of superior intellect or creativity. We can't all be superior, so no we are not all geniuses.

It are the circumstances that make it flourish. — Hillary

As well as talent. Some people are just slow.

An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary

Of course assembly line work is much more stimulating.

An academic milieu is not really stimulating. — Hillary

I doubt you know it, since you have shown to have no idea how academia works.

Two million euros thrown away. — Hillary

Apparently a rigorously selected committee consisting of his peers and probably experts in other fields think it is not. They should have of course listened to a dude named Hilary from PF...

And who pays? You really think he doesn't take a nice part of the pie? I saw his car. Not a cheap one... — Hillary

Full profs earn a nice salary and who cares whether he been awarded some of it for himself? You gave him as an example of an independent thinker (although you seem conflicted on that score) and I pointed out he works within a research community... Or did you give him as an example of a prof that got it wrong? Certainly profs get it wrong, that is also how science works. Promising theories get refuted... that is the way it goes, You can be and a genius and wrong...

Of course assembly line work is much more stimulating. — Tobias

Indeed. Einstein had his best ideas at work.

Full profs earn a nice salary and who cares whether he been awarded some of it for himself? You gave him as an example of an independent thinker (although you seem conflicted on that score) — Tobias

He just put together a bunch of old ideas. But in the wrong order. And his idea is already proven wrong. So geniuses are not always geniuses. Maybe never.

He just put together a bunch of old ideas. But in the wrong order. And his idea is already proven wrong. So geniuses are not always geniuses. Maybe never. — Hillary

And I suspect you have published your critique of his work in a physics journal? No geniuses can be wrong, also people with exceptional intellect can be wrong. Being a genius is not dependent on whether your theory survives empirical attempts at falsification. Indeed the research program it spawned may still be worthy of funding with 2000 k euro's.

And I suspect you have published your critique of his work in a physics journal — Tobias

No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here.

No. I addressed at him personal and on a physics forum here. — Hillary

What happened afterwards?

I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. But its conspicuous that galaxies without dark matter have been found and the bullet cluster contains two separate DM volumes. You could ad hoc change the theory, but his room to move gets smaller and smaller. His claim is that information on a surface comes first. Which is the wrong way round. I wont write him again. Small black holes arethe simplest solution.

I got no reply after several emails. Then I tried on wetenschaps forum and got banned. — Hillary

At least you are honest, that is more than most. There are two options. One you are a genius and you have figured out something that other amateurs but also that prof did not see. Or two you are a well meaning amateur but your ideas do not deserve to be taken seriously. The forums are populated to an overwhelming degree by the second kind. I do not exclude the first option, but given the odds it is unlikely. That is why you should write an article about it and see how well received it is by a community of knowledgeable people.

You may well be good at physics, I have no idea. I can also not judge it. That is why I asked for a publication because it is peer reviewed, so it is a marker that others who know about the subject think you should be taken seriously. That is handy in such discussions.

But anyway, it was not about this man, your example does not prove anything in the context of geniuses of community. Why do you think academia is not a stimulating environment? I have never gotten paid to read high class work from actual philsophers and gotten paid for doing so until I landed an academic job.

Is your "independent thinker" aware of philosophical history or not, because I think that is a crucial point to consider — Janus

Okay, I'll try one more time. I've only been talking about an independent thinker from philosophy, meaning they could have knowledge about everything, science, psychology, history, but would discuss "philosophical" topics without following the method in philosophy, without trying to criticise previous philosophers. But yes, there's still a problem because philosophy is part of history, so they couldn't be totally unaware of it, let's just then say that they could study it to understand the historical context, but for example, if they're trying to figure out what consciousness means, they're not going to check out what philosophers say about it, or at least not as a basis of their work.

No, but did cars come out of nowhere? They built on steam power vehicles, together with the combustion engine. Physics and technology made huge strides in the 19th century. These steps were not due to some genius but due to the combined work of many geniuses. Some we remember of course as geniuses,, but to think they came out of nowhere is just the product of ignorance. — Tobias

Now I feel like you're not making any effort to understand what I mean. Is an illiterate going to become a famous writer out of his pocket? Of course not. But imagine they're trying to make a faster vehicle. You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect).

Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance?

Ok, a global vision, but a global vision of what? — Tobias

Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example.

But if he is considered a scientist, and a philosopher, how independent can he be? — Tobias

They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method.

Science and philosophy are contrary to popular belief, rather communal affairs. — Tobias

Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays.

But anyway, it was not about this man, your example does not prove anything in the context of geniuses of community — Tobias

Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea?

You would have a team of engineers focusing on improve horse carriages, and a team of scientist believing we could use another form of energy to go faster. They both have 2 totally different methods, and you could say the scientists are independent of the theories of the engineers (although this example isn't perfect). — Skalidris

No it is not perfect indeed... that is why I do understand. The scientists and engineers are not independent of each other. The ones leaving the horse drawn carriage and focussing on combustion and steam got better results...

Basically, remove all contemporary philosophers and academic philosophy, leave only the archives and the other disciplines. What would come out if we tried to discuss abstract concepts that they normally discuss in philosophy, without any guidance? — Skalidris

Bollocks probably. However we do not know. How can I predict what happens when we study philosophy without philosophers?

Topics discussed in philosophy. A global vision of the human behaviour, global vision of life, space, anything really. They could specify in one topic, but when they all can be related to each other, that's when you know you've come up with something good, just like we use chemistry and physics in biology, for example. — Skalidris

Those are not topics discussed in philosophy. Human behaviour is discussed in sociology and psychology. A global vision of life seems theological, but might be philosophical, as it stands it is imprecise and space is only discussed in philosophy from a certain angle, but objects in space are subjects of physics or mathematics. What you seem to hope for is some sort of homo universalis, but indeed academic specialisation weeded them out. Those topics are just to big to study and link in one lifetime.

They could be a former scientist, psychologist, former historian, anything but philosophy, and basically now working on "philosophical" topics with their own method. — Skalidris

Oftentimes they say they are doing philosophy and just aren't. They perform their own discipline and call it philosophy. But now, are you just thinking science is better than philosophy or something? They are not skilled in the practice of philosophy and so take certain assumptions for granted without critical reflection, because that is what philosophy does and they have not had that training.

Philosophy and science were historically related but their method is so different nowadays that you can do one without the other quite easily, even if they were inspired by each other in the past. In some broad definition where philosophy seems to be anything that has to to with theoretical reasoning, of course it's impossible to take that out of the picture, but I'm really talking about the method from academia nowadays. — Skalidris

Yes, but what are you talking about? You are saying they are not wise and stuff. The last sentence I do not understand.

Yes you're right. The example was not well chosen. What about Einstein in his clerk office? A romantic idea? — Hillary

He might be such a genius, though I would have to know something about Einstein's biography and I really do not. I do know that at 22 he became a physics teacher. He formed club around him to read and discuss books and at 28 he became a teacher at university. Three years later he became an assistant professor and another 10 years later he received a nobel prize. Of course the man is a genius and he may well for all I know have been very independent. However he was also linked to academia. In how far this influenced him or not I have no idea. Of course geniuses do exist, those people who on their own provide a new perspective. However they are extremely rare and it seems in the current day and age, tied to academia or other prestigious research institutes, rarely at some mundane 9-17:00 job.