By and large, I would bet money that the devoted, experienced, and properly sequenced LWer, is a better philosopher than the average current philosophy majors concentrating in the analytic tradition.
Of course, this may very well be true, but a priori at least I would not so
readily dismiss people who spend most of their time doing philosophy rather
than outsiders having a different opinion about the emperor’s wardrobe.
Nevertheless, I think it’s an excellent idea to see what different approaches
to the same questions can bring us. However, since LW’ers in general (and
the poster in particular) can hardly be considered neutral parties in this, I
would recommend getting an analytic philosopher on board to give both sides a
fair chance. Especially to determine what is really meant with ‘better
philosopher’.
Furthermore,
a random sampling of vaguely successful analytic philosophers
is not really the best way to compare things, in my opinion; apart from the
hard-to-check methodology, one should try to find the best arguments from
the best analytic philosophers to compare against.
Of course, this may very well be true, but a priori at least I would not so readily dismiss people who spend most of their time doing philosophy rather than outsiders having a different opinion about the emperor’s wardrobe.
I don’t know if it’s up to going up against professionals on their home ground, but I have found LessWrong to be excellent training for philosophical street-fighting. Arguing on the Internet, arguing with theists, that sort of thing. “C’MON IF YOU THINK YER ROBUST ENOUGH.”
Interesting that that’s your experience. I found the high quality of discussion on LW made me less able to enjoy arguing with theists. Once I learned what conversation between two relatively sane people both willing to change their minds felt like, it was painfully obvious that my internet arguments weren’t like that.
Of course, this may very well be true, but a priori at least I would not so readily dismiss people who spend most of their time doing philosophy rather than outsiders having a different opinion about the emperor’s wardrobe.
Nevertheless, I think it’s an excellent idea to see what different approaches to the same questions can bring us. However, since LW’ers in general (and the poster in particular) can hardly be considered neutral parties in this, I would recommend getting an analytic philosopher on board to give both sides a fair chance. Especially to determine what is really meant with ‘better philosopher’.
Furthermore,
is not really the best way to compare things, in my opinion; apart from the hard-to-check methodology, one should try to find the best arguments from the best analytic philosophers to compare against.
I don’t know if it’s up to going up against professionals on their home ground, but I have found LessWrong to be excellent training for philosophical street-fighting. Arguing on the Internet, arguing with theists, that sort of thing. “C’MON IF YOU THINK YER ROBUST ENOUGH.”
Thereby contributing to the time-honored goal of ensuring that nobody on the Internet is wrong.
Or, at least, that they’re wrong much better.
Interesting that that’s your experience. I found the high quality of discussion on LW made me less able to enjoy arguing with theists. Once I learned what conversation between two relatively sane people both willing to change their minds felt like, it was painfully obvious that my internet arguments weren’t like that.