Or one could conclude that since EY’s post is so lacking in clarity and argument, to the level that would be expected of a phil. student, he just isn’t in any position to say phil. is crap. It is succesfully teaching skills he hasn’t got and needs.
I’d like to be explicit that I disagree with you, though this is implied in the grandparent. I think Luke, and EY, have very good philosophical heads on their shoulders. I also don’t think there’s such thing as philosophical expertise (contra Luke, I admit), so Luke’s admitted lack of traditional philosophical training doesn’t bother me (and shouldn’t bother you).
Or one could conclude that since EY’s post is so lacking in clarity and argument, to the level that would be expected of a phil. student, he just isn’t in any position to say phil. is crap. It is succesfully teaching skills he hasn’t got and needs.
Do you mean Luke, or are you referring to some other Yudkowsky post?
I’d like to be explicit that I disagree with you, though this is implied in the grandparent. I think Luke, and EY, have very good philosophical heads on their shoulders. I also don’t think there’s such thing as philosophical expertise (contra Luke, I admit), so Luke’s admitted lack of traditional philosophical training doesn’t bother me (and shouldn’t bother you).
I don’t care about philosophical training, (having had none myself). I do care about clarity and good argumentation.
I agree. So would my mentor, and he’s said so explicitly: “I am an expert at logic, but I don’t believe anyone is an expert at Philosophy.”