I beg to differ.
Lock says that the solution to the tragedy of the commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, to privatize it. John Locke, "Sect. 27" and following sections in Second Treatise of Government (1690).

3. Is, I think, not even about egocentrism. — Benkei

Children generally, are noted for their egocentrism. Hence, I propose that the nanny state is aimed at an egotistical adult subset. Further, you propose that, risk perception is aligned to terrible behaviour, and continue on cleverly, to quote the tragedy of the commons as an exemplar.

Let's ask, What was the solution for the tragedy of the commons? It was "property rights, government regulation, the development of a collective action arrangement." Germain to the pandemic are the solutions of government regulation and collective action. Note that collective action can be merely social pressure not to break wind in the elevator - which works.

I do not know where I am going with all this. I feel that much of this Coronavirus thread is whining about not getting to do whatever, whenever, wherever one wants. There is a term for that. (I am not looking at you :-) )

I put it to you that:
1. The new rules/laws associated with the pandemic are nothing more than the expansion of what conservatives call the "nanny state."
2. The nanny state is required because of the adults who behave like small children.
3. Therefore, the new rules/laws are necessary because of the mayhem caused by egocentric unripe adults.

I am sorry you feel that way. I did not intend to offend you. Would might take your alternate suggestion if I knew what it meant.
By the way, I am not an American.

a projection of 100,000 deaths is 'good job' — StreetlightX

I would ask you, Would 100,000 deaths be "good" if the alternative was 100,000,000.
Also, I would agree with you that 100,000 is a fuck-up if the alternative was 100 deaths.

I am entering my sixth decade of life. For me, this pandemic is the most existing event of my life. I have been in the biosciences so long, it now feels like I have arrived. Like a political scientist in the middle of a revolution bloody revolution I take notes in wide eyed excitement.
Question: Given the human toll of this plague, am I a bad person for having such joy?

Except that's not what science is. You can't leave out "systematic," it's what makes it science instead of "stuff I know." It's what makes the scientific method philosophy.

Nope. I can leave out "systematic." A lot of investigation have a lot of suck-it-and-see tomfoolery. AND humans are far from being UNsystematic. From chipping conoidal stones to winking at someone in hope. Saying science must be systematic is superfluous.

So, dudes, what is going on on this site? Is there a crisis?
— Denovo Meme

No crisis. I think of it this way. I read a lot - a little philosophy, science, science fiction, other odds and ends. I used to love movies and TV. A lot of those things are crap too, but if I started now and read 12 hours a day for the rest of my life, I could never read 1% of the worthwhile, high quality, moving books in English that have been written. I couldn't even start to keep up with what is written every day.

That's the secret - don't read the crap. If you can't tell what's good and what's crap, it's your fault, not the craps. — T Clark

Would you say that to a kid? Perhaps discernment comes from formal education and informal culture.

OK schopen. I can see you are trying to help me out. I have read your lengthy and reply bursting with examples, contingencies and unsustainable dichotomies. You finish nicely with this.

See what I mean, NOTHING should be taken at face value. That is the philosophical approach. To take things as just the way they are presented to you, would be uncritical and non-self-reflective. — schopenhauer1

The problem here is that there are no boundaries! Enquiry extends to infinity. In the real world, my world, you gotta make a decision.

What are the laws and principles of philosophy?

The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Let's pull out a couple of words I think are important - "systematic" and "methodology." What is the system, the methodology, by which science operates? Well, we call it the scientific method and it involves, as the definitions indicate, observation and experimentation along with a bunch of other stuff. The scientific method is not science, it's how we pursue knowledge and understanding, i.e. epistemology, i.e. philosophy.[/quote]

Yes. I understand that.

In my dotage I have gone from undergrad teaching to the more rewarding school teaching of science. It is so refreshing to be unburdened by jargon and trivial, but career sustaining caveats. What you have written is fine. But compare it with the crystal clear, elegant brevity of:

"Science is the things we found out and how we found them out."

Now. I found this quote.
"This article articulates a fundamental crisis of disciplinary philosophy—its lack of disciplinary self‐consciousness and the skeptical problems this generates—and, through that articulation, exemplifies a means of mitigating its force. Disciplinary philosophy organizes itself as a producer of specialized knowledge, with the apparatus of journals, publication requirements, and other professional standards, but it cannot agree on what constitutes knowledge, progress, or value, and evinces ignorance of its history and alternatives. This situation engenders a skepticism that threatens the legitimacy of disciplinary philosophy. The article proposes a response to this skepticism, rooted in the conditions that philosophers evince a specific kind of awareness of their own activity and its professional and cultural location, demonstrate this awareness by articulating it in the practice of philosophy itself, and recognize that precisely such articulation lies at the core of the Socratic idea of philosophy as a form of self‐knowledge."

So, dudes, what is going on on this site? Is there a crisis?

This summarizes my understanding of the proper goals and methods of philosophy. When I read this, I have this image of me sitting in an empty room, maybe 10 feet wide by 25 feet long. It looks like a school corridor – concrete block walls painted yellow, white ceiling, gray linoleum floor, ceiling lighting. No windows, no furniture, one grey metal door at the end. I’ll add a chair, I don’t want to have to sit on the floor. There, alone, I have everything I need to figure out the nature of reality and the meaning of existence. The ultimate lazy person’s philosophy. No need to read or study, just watch. Don’t even watch. — T Clark

OMG. A few years ago I was rummaging through old boxes from 5 decades ago. They were full of old school books full of old memories. I found a full page which had one full sentence - in pencil. It was headed "What I Did On the Holidays." I had written "I sat in my mind and wondered what I was sitting on."

I have never studied philosophy. I read occasional popular articles that purport to be philosophical. However, after a life of engineering and science gave me a sledge hammer and Occums Razor, I realised that philosophy, as some people use it, has no tools. It has lotsa sports equipment for people to play GOTCHA. And when the fans have left and the lights are turned off, the homeless are still lying under the bridge.

The philosophy of engineering is an emerging discipline

I hope not, engineering is getting on just fine by overlapping with related professions.

My original post was an appeal for someone to say what philosophy uses to gain credibility?
— Denovo Meme

I do not believe that gaining mainstream credibility is much of a goal in philosophy.

That is the saddest thing I have read in months. I want philosophy in schools age 5 to 12. What would Socrates think? Tsk tsk tsk

Why would philosophers be interested in how Joe wants to pay his electricity bill?

They would want to know because they concerned for peoples' well being. Apparently you are not concerned.

I really do wish to know why we should listen to philosophers.
— Denovo Meme

Well, then don't.

Well, I won't be listening to you

... this is not the best place to hang out for people who do NOT like discussing philosophy. Being negative and picking something you do not like, will not get you anywhere. ... try to be a bit more likeable, and be receptive for possible opportunities that may arise wherever he goes.

Be quite sure, you do not know me, yet you surmise too much about me. Your IQ might be 2 standard deviations up, but your EQ is two down. Please do not speak to me or quote me again. - Matthew

I really do wish to know why we should listen to philosophers. What is their credibility score.
— Denovo Meme

Here's a question, what's the point of using electricity in the first place? Why engineer all this engineering?


Schopen, dude, I asked a question. Yes? Philosophy is about asking questions and trying to answer them. When I ask a question like, "Why should we listen to philosophers?" you have no business asking me why do electricity? It is worse than rhetorical, its obfuscation.

The gist of all this is that philosophy surrounds, supports, finds critical problems with the very science you seem to pit as "against" philosophy or somehow separate from it. Science has been in the philosophy family, the whole time though. — schopenhauer1

I get it. When we sweat a PhD, is evidence that we can think. However, what I want to know Is, is philosophy redundant. Has science eclipsed it. Has religion raped it. Has it become a parasite on humanity. Personally I do not think so. But it is looking scabby. I will keep asking the question: Should listen to philosophers. What is their credibility score?

There is a true answer to the nature/origen of math. If there is no definitive philosophical answer, perhaps it's because no one has gotten it right... yet.

Really? Mathematics is tricks with values and its origin is the from prefrontal cortex. Where's my Prize?

WOW. Thanks for that huge and generous response. You appear to be a heavy weight contender for World Philosophy Championship.

"Platonism, Logicism, Formalism, Conventionalism, Intuitionism, Structuralism, Embodied mind, Fictionalism, and Social constructivism [et al.]"

This sounds like a joke - joke about the consistency in any tree of religions you care to name. On the other hand, take engineers: mechanical; electrical; chemical; civil; aeronautical; genetic et cetera. These fields all rely on the same empirically proven laws and principles. My original post was an appeal for someone to say what philosophy uses to gain credibility?

"Metaphilosophy (sometimes called philosophy of philosophy) is "the investigation of the nature of philosophy"
and
The philosophy of science has its own schools of thought, which argue about the nature of science: The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science."

Investigating what science is and what philosophy might meta-be does not help Joe Average to put food on the table. Joe wants to know how to use science and philosophy to pay the electricity bill.

I really do wish to know why we should listen to philosophers. What is their credibility score.