My professional input does not depend on bias in moral (or similarly fuzzy) questions.
But that doesn’t make philosophy uniquely broken. If anything it is the other way around: disciplines that deal with the kind of well-defined abstract problems where biases can’t get a grip, are exceptional.
As for other biases, I definitively determine success or failure on a time scale ranging from minutes to weeks.These are rather different from how a philosopher can operate.
“Can operate” was carefully phrased. If the main role of philosophers is to answer urgent object level moral quandaries, then the OP would have pointed out a serious real world problem....but philosophers typically don’t do that, they typically engage in long term meta level thought on a variety of topics,
Philosophers can operates in a way that approximates the OP scenario, for instance, when they sit on ethics committees. Of course, they sit alongside society’s actual go-to experts on object level ethics, religious professionals, who are unlikely to be less biased.
Philosophers aren’t the most biased or most impactive people in society....worry about the biases of politicians, doctors, and financiers.
You can dismiss philosophy, if it doesn’t suit your purposes, but that is not at all the same as the original claim that philosophers are somehow doing their job badly. Dismissing philosophers without dismissing philosophy is dangerous, as it means you are doing philosophy without knowing how. You are unlikely to be less biased, whilst being likely to misunderstand questions, reinvent broken solutions, and so on. Consistently avoiding philosophy is harder than it seems. You are likely be making a philosophical claim when you say scientists and mathematicians converge on truth.
You can dismiss philosophy, if it doesn’t suit your purposes, but that is not at all the same as the original claim that philosophers are somehow doing their job badly
I didn’t mean to dismiss moral philosophy; I agree that it asks important questions, including “should we apply a treatment where 400 of 600 survive?” and “do such-and-such people actually choose to apply this treatment?” But I do dismiss philosophers who can’t answer these questions free of presentation bias, because even I myself can do better. Hopefully there are other moral philosophers out there who are both specialists and free of bias. The OP’s suggestion that philosophers are untrustworthy obviously depends on how representative that survey is of philosophers in general. However, I don’t believe that it’s not representative merely because a PHD in moral philosophy sounds very wise.
I didn’t mean to dismiss moral philosophy; I agree that it asks important questions, including “should we apply a treatment where 400 of 600 survive?” and “do such-and-such people actually choose to apply this treatment?” But I do dismiss philosophers who can’t answer these questions free of presentation bias,
Meaning you dismiss their output, even though it isnt prepared under those conditions and is prepared under conditions allowing bias reduction, eg by cross checking.
because even I myself can do better.
Under the same conditions? Has that been tested?
Hopefully there are other moral philosophers out there who are both specialists and free of bias. The OP’s suggestion that philosophers are untrustworthy obviously depends on how representative that survey is of philosophers in general. However, I don’t believe that it’s not representative merely because a PHD in moral philosophy sounds very wise.
Scientists have been shown to have failings of their own, under similarly artificial conditions. Are you going to to reject scientists, because of their individual untrustworthiness...or trust the system?
It hasn’t been tested, but I’m reasonably confident in my prediction. Because, if I were answering moral dilemmas, and explicitly reasoning in far mode, I would try to follow some kind of formal system, where presentation doesn’t matter, and where answers can be checked for correctness.
Granted, I would need some time to prepare such a system, to practice with it. And I’m well aware that all actually proposed formal moral systems go against moral intuitions in some cases. So my claim to counterfactually be a better moral philosopher is really quite contingent.
Scientists have been shown to have failings of their own, under similarly artificial conditions. Are you going to to reject scientists, because of their individual untrustworthiness...or trust the system?
Other sciences deal with human fallibility by having an objective standard of truth against which individual beliefs can be measured. Mathematical theories have formal proofs, and with enough effort the proofs can even be machine-checked. Physical, etc. theories produce empirical predictions that can be independently verified. What is the equivalent in moral philosophy?
But that doesn’t make philosophy uniquely broken. If anything it is the other way around: disciplines that deal with the kind of well-defined abstract problems where biases can’t get a grip, are exceptional.
“Can operate” was carefully phrased. If the main role of philosophers is to answer urgent object level moral quandaries, then the OP would have pointed out a serious real world problem....but philosophers typically don’t do that, they typically engage in long term meta level thought on a variety of topics,
Philosophers can operates in a way that approximates the OP scenario, for instance, when they sit on ethics committees. Of course, they sit alongside society’s actual go-to experts on object level ethics, religious professionals, who are unlikely to be less biased.
Philosophers aren’t the most biased or most impactive people in society....worry about the biases of politicians, doctors, and financiers.
I can’t dismiss politicians, doctors and financiers. I can dismiss philosophers, so I’m asking why should I listen to them.
You can dismiss philosophy, if it doesn’t suit your purposes, but that is not at all the same as the original claim that philosophers are somehow doing their job badly. Dismissing philosophers without dismissing philosophy is dangerous, as it means you are doing philosophy without knowing how. You are unlikely to be less biased, whilst being likely to misunderstand questions, reinvent broken solutions, and so on. Consistently avoiding philosophy is harder than it seems. You are likely be making a philosophical claim when you say scientists and mathematicians converge on truth.
I didn’t mean to dismiss moral philosophy; I agree that it asks important questions, including “should we apply a treatment where 400 of 600 survive?” and “do such-and-such people actually choose to apply this treatment?” But I do dismiss philosophers who can’t answer these questions free of presentation bias, because even I myself can do better. Hopefully there are other moral philosophers out there who are both specialists and free of bias. The OP’s suggestion that philosophers are untrustworthy obviously depends on how representative that survey is of philosophers in general. However, I don’t believe that it’s not representative merely because a PHD in moral philosophy sounds very wise.
Meaning you dismiss their output, even though it isnt prepared under those conditions and is prepared under conditions allowing bias reduction, eg by cross checking.
Under the same conditions? Has that been tested?
Scientists have been shown to have failings of their own, under similarly artificial conditions. Are you going to to reject scientists, because of their individual untrustworthiness...or trust the system?
It hasn’t been tested, but I’m reasonably confident in my prediction. Because, if I were answering moral dilemmas, and explicitly reasoning in far mode, I would try to follow some kind of formal system, where presentation doesn’t matter, and where answers can be checked for correctness.
Granted, I would need some time to prepare such a system, to practice with it. And I’m well aware that all actually proposed formal moral systems go against moral intuitions in some cases. So my claim to counterfactually be a better moral philosopher is really quite contingent.
Other sciences deal with human fallibility by having an objective standard of truth against which individual beliefs can be measured. Mathematical theories have formal proofs, and with enough effort the proofs can even be machine-checked. Physical, etc. theories produce empirical predictions that can be independently verified. What is the equivalent in moral philosophy?
So in short, you are answering your rhetorical question with ‘no’, which rather undermines your earlier point—no, DanArmak did not ‘prove too much’.
Shminux did.
If you answer the rhetorical question as ‘no’ then no, Shminux didn’t prove too much either.