What? I felt like those were fair points.

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.

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. — Cuthbert

I would say that says more about Pinker than in does about academia. I think you are talking about whats being brought to academia from outside its confines, leaving my point about academia itself standing.
What has academic philosophy taught its students if most of the main issues cannot be decided by that education?

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. — Cuthbert

I tend to agree that there are deeper problems with thought and language when it comes to philosophy, but this falls under the purview of academic philosophy’s responsibility.
What would we say about geology if there was close to an even split between about how old the earth is, how mountains are formed, whether or not the ice age created modern waterways and whether or not diamonds form from coal? We would say “what a joke, get your shit together geology”.
I could have made my point in less harshly but it seems like we have a harsh reality about academic philosophy on our hands. Also, I meant it lightheartedly if that matters. I should have used some emojo’s I guess.

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:

Hilarious how many major philosophical inquiries are pretty close to an even split despite being discussed and debated for centuries.

So academic philosophy is a complete joke. Roger that. — DingoJones

But I have some sympathy with your complaint. — Cuthbert

My take on this is that philosophical questions may well have been correctly answered already. But we don't have a way of settling the dispute easily. In science, the scientific method eventually compels dissenters, at least amongst scientists (not flat earthers). In philosophy, it's easier to maintain a dissenting position, as consulting the physical world rarely settles the dispute.

My take on this is that philosophical questions may well have been correctly answered already. But we don't have a way of settling the dispute easily. In science, the scientific method eventually compels dissenters, at least amongst scientists (not flat earthers). In philosophy, it's easier to maintain a dissenting position, as consulting the physical world rarely settles the dispute. — bert1

Well that is my point…if philosophy is so easy to dispute, so easily justifying of opposing views, isnt that a bit of a joke academically speaking? An academic discipline so lacking doesnt seem to belong.

On the contrary, this is just to say that philosophy isn't science, and isn't supposed to be. However there can be rigor in the conceptual analysis, examination of inferences, clarifying concepts, mapping the theoretical possibilities (or interpretations of them). Philosophers can and should fix the sloppy thinking when they find it in other disciplines.

It's an interesting poll(s) result. Though compared to other fields of enquiry, consensus in philosophy is very far from being a sign we are thinking about something correctly.

I mean, if such a poll were to be taken before the 17th century, most European philosophers would likely be dualists.

And the determinism thing continues to be a bit puzzling. It made sense in Newton's time, but now we know that physics tells us that the world is at bottom probabilistic, not deterministic.

Either way, I doubt physics tells us anything about free will.

Still, it's good information to have. Thanks for sharing.

On the contrary, this is just to say that philosophy isn't science, and isn't supposed to be. However there can be rigor in the conceptual analysis, examination of inferences, clarifying concepts, mapping the theoretical possibilities (or interpretations of them). Philosophers can and should fix the sloppy thinking when they find it in other disciplines. — bert1

Im not saying philosophy is science. I'm talking about academic value. Im open minded as to what would constitute a fair comparison, as some academic disciplines (like mathematics) lend themselves to more concrete conclusions.
How can you call academic philosophy rigorous when the results of that “rigor” are inconclusive on so many major philosophical issues?

How can you call academic philosophy rigorous when the results of that “rigor” are inconclusive on so many major philosophical issues? — DingoJones

The results are conclusive. Many philosophical problems have been correctly solved. It's just we can't agree on which ones and in what way, because there we don't have a clear enough objective thing that we all have equal access to that we can consult.

How do you know they have been correctly solved?
How can you call a result conclusive when there is an near even split about what the conclusion is?!

How do you know they have been correctly solved? — DingoJones

Because the solution in question is the most reasonable of the options.

How can you call a result conclusive when there is an near even split about what the conclusion is?! — DingoJones

Depends what we mean by 'conclusive' I guess. I don't think it entails agreement. I can find something to conclusively be the case. But someone else might think I'm completely mistaken.

Depends what we mean by 'conclusive' I guess. I don't think it entails agreement. I can find something to conclusively be the case. But someone else might think I'm completely mistaken. — bert1

“Conclusive” according to other academic standards. I previously used a geology example: in geology there is disagreement about specific details, as with philosophy. Fair. We could go down the list until eventually to major questions, in geology whether the world is flat or round for example. If for all such major questions about geology it was a near split, geology would have a big problem. If roughly half the geologists thought the earth was flat, geology would quickly become a punchline. A joke.
This poll shows that philosophy has this problem. The experts have spent centuries or more and still can’t give us a reliable conclusion (the weight of all the experts on one side or the other, rather than more close to evenly divided).

The experts have spent centuries or more and still can’t give us a reliable conclusion — DingoJones

Half of the the experts have given us a reliable conclusion, and the other half haven't.

oh ya? Which half? :shade:
Obviously we are talking about all the experts, not half of them. What you said makes no sense in the context of this discussion.

Which half? — DingoJones

The correct half