I do claim that almost all philosophy is useless for figuring out what is true,
I’ll say it again: there is no point in criticising philosophy unless you have (1) a better way of (2) answering the same questions.
ETA:
Mark doesn’t explain here why it’s “nonsense” to propose that truth-seekers (qua truth-seekers) should ignore 99% of all philosophy,
See above. You need something better.
why many metaphysical arguments aren’t meaningless
LP is a known failure, as has been pointed out here innumberable times The burden is on you to justify the LP metaphsics-is-nonsense principle.
, why some philosophical problems can’t simply be dissolved,
Mark doesn’t have to arge that no problem can be dissolved, since he never claimed that. You probably need to
arge that the majority can be dissolved , since you keep citing the proportion of philosophy that is worthless as over 90%. You also
probably need to expaln why phils. can’t do that, in the teeth of examples of the doing just that (eg Dennett on quaia).
nor why Chalmers’ approach to philosophy is superior to Eliezer’s.
Consider this: If an amaterur claims to be doing considerably better than an acknowledged domain expert, he is probably suffering
from the Dunning-Krueger effect.
I meant that the general principle that you shouldn’t point out problems until you have a solution doesn’t seem sound to me.
As for philosophy, I don’t know whether it has a problem. I do think that rather little useful has come out of it for a long time, and we could use disciplines of applied philosophy in the same spirit that engineering is a conveyor belt for making math, physics, and chemistry useful.
The burden is on you to justify the LP metaphysics-is-nonsense principle.
One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists, to show that what they’re saying is useful. But anyway, I’m not going to play burden of proof tennis. All I was saying in that paragraph is that Eliezer and I have explained our approaches to philosophy at length, and Mark’s final paragraph offered only contradictions (of our views) rather than counter-arguments.
Also, neither Eliezer nor I are logical positivists. See here and here.
there is no point in criticising philosophy unless you have (1) a better way of (2) answering the same questions.
Um… I’m writing an entire sequence about that, and so is Eliezer...
So you don’t gave a better way, strictly speaking, you are in the process of formulating one.… but you are sufficiently confident of success to offer criticism of other approaches in the basis of your expected results?
One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists, to show that what they’re saying is useful.
One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists, to show that what they’re saying is useful.
That’s precisely the proper response to any proposed wonderful activity: show me the payoff.
And don’t tell me all the truths you can produce—show the payoff of those truths. Show me what you can do with them, that I might want to have done.
Academia is full of people producing stacks of bits. That activity is very profitable for them, but I fail to see the payoff in many of those bits to anyone else, and in particular, me.
“Am wrtiing” does not equate to “actually have”. You need to write it, answer objections and show that it works.
One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists,
Metaphysicians.
to show that what they’re saying is useful.
Also, neither Eliezer nor I are logical positivists
OK. The basis of your claim that metaphysics is not the standard one. What, then, is it?
No. Metaphysics is meaningful by default, becuse the default meaning of “meaningful” is “comprehensible to others”
which metaphsyics is. (Your tried to shift the debate from “meaningful” to “useful”. Don’t). There’s no debate about whether ichthyology is meaningful. We don’t assume by default that academic disciplines are meaningless. The claim that metaphysics is meaningless is extrordinary, so the burden fals on the maker to defend it.
But anyway, I’m not going to play burden of proof tennis.
You have already started. You inititally placed the burden on your opponents. The fact that you are unwilling to justify that manouvre does not mean the burden rests there.
Mark’s final paragraph offered only contradictions (of our views) rather than counter-arguments.
I thoought Chalmers was meant as a counterexample—of scientific philosophy Done Right.
“Metaphysics” shouldn’t really be thought of as a description of the discipline the way, say, metamathematics is a description of a discipline. The name “metaphysics” is basically a historical accident. Aristotle’s Metaphysics was called that because it was published after his Physics, not because of any relationship between the content of physics and metaphysics. So while it’s true they’re not practicing meta-medicine, they’re not practicing meta-physics either.
Anyway, according to Wikipedia, both “metaphysicist” and “metaphysician” are correct.
I’ll say it again: there is no point in criticising philosophy unless you have (1) a better way of (2) answering the same questions.
Criticism could come in the form of showing that the questions shouldn’t be asked for one reason or another. Or criticism could come in the form of showing that the questions cannot be answered with the available tools. For example, if I ran into a bunch of people trying to trisect an arbitrary angle using compass and straight-edge, I might show them that their tools are inadequate for the task. In principle, I could do that without having any replacement procedure. And yet, it seems that I have helped them out.
Such criticism would have at least the following point. If people are engaged in a practice that cannot accomplish what they aim to accomplish, then they are wasting resources. Getting them to redirect their energies to other projects—perhaps getting them to search for other ways to satisfy their original aims (ways that might possibly work) -- would put their resources to work.
Criticism could come in the form of showing that the questions shouldn’t be asked for one reason or another
Agreed, in principle. Hoewever, I am waiting for someone to do that in a way that
applies to the stated 90%+ of philosophy.
is objective and scientific, not just an expression of personal preference
avoids the self-undermining problems of LP
. If people are engaged in a practice that cannot accomplish what they aim to accomplish, t
If. Note that there is already a great deal of criticism of particualr schools of philsosphy, and of philosophy in general, within philosophy. Note also that LW is not only lakcing the Something Better, it is also lacing a critique that fulfils the three criteria above.
I’ll say it again: there is no point in criticising philosophy unless you have (1) a better way of (2) answering the same questions.
ETA:
See above. You need something better.
LP is a known failure, as has been pointed out here innumberable times The burden is on you to justify the LP metaphsics-is-nonsense principle.
Mark doesn’t have to arge that no problem can be dissolved, since he never claimed that. You probably need to arge that the majority can be dissolved , since you keep citing the proportion of philosophy that is worthless as over 90%. You also probably need to expaln why phils. can’t do that, in the teeth of examples of the doing just that (eg Dennett on quaia).
Consider this: If an amaterur claims to be doing considerably better than an acknowledged domain expert, he is probably suffering from the Dunning-Krueger effect.
This is probably false. Sometimes you know you have a problem for quite a while before you have a solution.
What’s the problem with philosophy?
I meant that the general principle that you shouldn’t point out problems until you have a solution doesn’t seem sound to me.
As for philosophy, I don’t know whether it has a problem. I do think that rather little useful has come out of it for a long time, and we could use disciplines of applied philosophy in the same spirit that engineering is a conveyor belt for making math, physics, and chemistry useful.
Is it supposed to be useful?
We have them, eg ethics.
Um… I’m writing an entire sequence about that, and so is Eliezer...
One might just as well argue that burden is on metaphysicists, to show that what they’re saying is useful. But anyway, I’m not going to play burden of proof tennis. All I was saying in that paragraph is that Eliezer and I have explained our approaches to philosophy at length, and Mark’s final paragraph offered only contradictions (of our views) rather than counter-arguments.
Also, neither Eliezer nor I are logical positivists. See here and here.
So you don’t gave a better way, strictly speaking, you are in the process of formulating one.… but you are sufficiently confident of success to offer criticism of other approaches in the basis of your expected results?
Physicalism is metaphysics,
That’s precisely the proper response to any proposed wonderful activity: show me the payoff.
And don’t tell me all the truths you can produce—show the payoff of those truths. Show me what you can do with them, that I might want to have done.
Academia is full of people producing stacks of bits. That activity is very profitable for them, but I fail to see the payoff in many of those bits to anyone else, and in particular, me.
Perhaps you could begin by demosntrating your own usefulness.
“Am wrtiing” does not equate to “actually have”. You need to write it, answer objections and show that it works.
Metaphysicians.
OK. The basis of your claim that metaphysics is not the standard one. What, then, is it? No. Metaphysics is meaningful by default, becuse the default meaning of “meaningful” is “comprehensible to others” which metaphsyics is. (Your tried to shift the debate from “meaningful” to “useful”. Don’t). There’s no debate about whether ichthyology is meaningful. We don’t assume by default that academic disciplines are meaningless. The claim that metaphysics is meaningless is extrordinary, so the burden fals on the maker to defend it.
You have already started. You inititally placed the burden on your opponents. The fact that you are unwilling to justify that manouvre does not mean the burden rests there.
I thoought Chalmers was meant as a counterexample—of scientific philosophy Done Right.
Metaphysicians.
That being said, I don’t know whether ‘metaphysicists’ or ‘metaphysicians’ would be better.
It should be metaphysicist. They don’t practice metamedicine.
“Metaphysics” shouldn’t really be thought of as a description of the discipline the way, say, metamathematics is a description of a discipline. The name “metaphysics” is basically a historical accident. Aristotle’s Metaphysics was called that because it was published after his Physics, not because of any relationship between the content of physics and metaphysics. So while it’s true they’re not practicing meta-medicine, they’re not practicing meta-physics either.
Anyway, according to Wikipedia, both “metaphysicist” and “metaphysician” are correct.
“Metaphysician” is in Merria-m-Websete, “Metaphysicist” is not.
Criticism could come in the form of showing that the questions shouldn’t be asked for one reason or another. Or criticism could come in the form of showing that the questions cannot be answered with the available tools. For example, if I ran into a bunch of people trying to trisect an arbitrary angle using compass and straight-edge, I might show them that their tools are inadequate for the task. In principle, I could do that without having any replacement procedure. And yet, it seems that I have helped them out.
Such criticism would have at least the following point. If people are engaged in a practice that cannot accomplish what they aim to accomplish, then they are wasting resources. Getting them to redirect their energies to other projects—perhaps getting them to search for other ways to satisfy their original aims (ways that might possibly work) -- would put their resources to work.
Agreed, in principle. Hoewever, I am waiting for someone to do that in a way that
applies to the stated 90%+ of philosophy.
is objective and scientific, not just an expression of personal preference
avoids the self-undermining problems of LP
If. Note that there is already a great deal of criticism of particualr schools of philsosphy, and of philosophy in general, within philosophy. Note also that LW is not only lakcing the Something Better, it is also lacing a critique that fulfils the three criteria above.