As a philosophy student with a great interest in math and computing, I can definitely attest to the lack of scientific understanding in my department. Worse, it often seems like some professors actively encourage an anti-scientific ideology. I’m wondering if anybody has any practical ideas on how to converse with students and professors [who are not supportive or knowledgeable of the rationalist and Bayesian world-view] in a positive and engaging way.
You could introduce some of your friends into LessWrong topics by labeling them as “philosophy”. (Start with the articles that don’t explicitly criticize the current state of philosophy, obviously.)
The label seems credible—some of my friends, when I sent them a link to LW, replied that it seems to be a website about philosophy. And when a person already has “studying philosophy” as part of their self-concept, they may be more likely to agree to look at something labeled as “philosophical”.
Perhaps you could just taboo “science” and describe scientists as a weird branch of philosophers—philosophers who try to test their ideas experimentally, because this is what their weird philosophy tells them to do. Now learning about such weird philosophy would be interesting, wouldn’t it?
Tabooing the word “science”seems to be a pretty good idea, along with other scientific jargon. I think many of the idealist and continental philosophy students are not afraid of science exactly, but fear that it somehow makes the human condition worse; more mechanical, and less special.
Well, there’s also the various concerns about research programs — the social institutions of science that direct which knowledge is found. Consider the following argument:
In the 20th century, a lot of research effort and funding was spent on discovering what objective properties of the world might be useful to know in order to blow people up more effectively (atomic physics, e.g.), order them around inhumanely (behaviorism), control their wants and desires (advertising and propaganda), and so forth. There are presumably also objective properties of the world that would be useful to know in order to make peace and prosperity for all — and these also can be empirically investigated; but the goal of discovering them is not as good of a source of funding as those other ones; and so they are by and large not the subject of institutional science.
First, make sure that they’re actually approachable at all.
Second, don’t approach them in a combative fashion, like this post does. You need to approach them by understanding their specific view of morality and epistemology and their view of how philosophy relates to that, and how it should relate to it, or even if they think it does or should at all. Approach them from a perspective that is explicitly open to change. Ask lots of questions, then ask follow up questions. These questions shouldn’t be combative, although they should probably expose assumptions that are at least seemingly questionable.
Third, make sure you know what you’re getting into yourself. Some of those guys are very smart, and they have a lot more experience than you do. Do your homework.
I’m trying to think what I would do. I don’t know how I’d go about creating the groundwork for the conversation or selecting the person with whom I would converse. But here’s an outline of how I think the conversation might go.
Me: What do you believe about epistemology?
Them: I believe X.
Me: I believe that empiricism works, even if I don’t know why it works. I believe that if something is useful that’s sufficient to justify believing in it, at least up to the point where it stops being useful. This is because I think changing one’s epistemology only makes sense if it’s motivated by one’s values since truth is not necessarily an end in itself.
I think X is problematic because it ignores Y and assumes Z. Z is a case of bad science, and most scientists don’t Z.
What do you believe about morality?
Them: I believe A.
Me: I believe that morality is a guide to human behavior that seeks to discriminate between right and wrong behavior. However, I don’t believe that a moral system is necessarily objective in the traditional sense. I think that morality has to do with individual values and desires since desires are the only form of inherently motivational facts and are thus the key link between epistemic truth and moral guidance. I think individuals should pursue their values, although I often get confused when those values contradict.
I sort of believe A, in that _. But I disagree with A because X.
What do you think philosophy is and ought to be, if anything?
Them: Q.
Me: Honestly, I don’t know or particularly care about the definitions of words because I’m mainly only interested in things that achieve my values. But, I think that philosophy, whatever its specific definition, ought to be aimed towards the purpose of clarifying morality and epistemology because I think that would be a useful step towards achieving my individual values.
Thank you very much Chaos. I did not realize that my post came off as abrasive, I appreciate you pointing that out. Your example sounds quite reasonable and is more along the lines of what I was looking for.
As a philosophy student with a great interest in math and computing, I can definitely attest to the lack of scientific understanding in my department. Worse, it often seems like some professors actively encourage an anti-scientific ideology. I’m wondering if anybody has any practical ideas on how to converse with students and professors [who are not supportive or knowledgeable of the rationalist and Bayesian world-view] in a positive and engaging way.
You could introduce some of your friends into LessWrong topics by labeling them as “philosophy”. (Start with the articles that don’t explicitly criticize the current state of philosophy, obviously.)
The label seems credible—some of my friends, when I sent them a link to LW, replied that it seems to be a website about philosophy. And when a person already has “studying philosophy” as part of their self-concept, they may be more likely to agree to look at something labeled as “philosophical”.
Perhaps you could just taboo “science” and describe scientists as a weird branch of philosophers—philosophers who try to test their ideas experimentally, because this is what their weird philosophy tells them to do. Now learning about such weird philosophy would be interesting, wouldn’t it?
Tabooing the word “science”seems to be a pretty good idea, along with other scientific jargon. I think many of the idealist and continental philosophy students are not afraid of science exactly, but fear that it somehow makes the human condition worse; more mechanical, and less special.
Thanks
Well, there’s also the various concerns about research programs — the social institutions of science that direct which knowledge is found. Consider the following argument:
In the 20th century, a lot of research effort and funding was spent on discovering what objective properties of the world might be useful to know in order to blow people up more effectively (atomic physics, e.g.), order them around inhumanely (behaviorism), control their wants and desires (advertising and propaganda), and so forth. There are presumably also objective properties of the world that would be useful to know in order to make peace and prosperity for all — and these also can be empirically investigated; but the goal of discovering them is not as good of a source of funding as those other ones; and so they are by and large not the subject of institutional science.
First, make sure that they’re actually approachable at all.
Second, don’t approach them in a combative fashion, like this post does. You need to approach them by understanding their specific view of morality and epistemology and their view of how philosophy relates to that, and how it should relate to it, or even if they think it does or should at all. Approach them from a perspective that is explicitly open to change. Ask lots of questions, then ask follow up questions. These questions shouldn’t be combative, although they should probably expose assumptions that are at least seemingly questionable.
Third, make sure you know what you’re getting into yourself. Some of those guys are very smart, and they have a lot more experience than you do. Do your homework.
I’m trying to think what I would do. I don’t know how I’d go about creating the groundwork for the conversation or selecting the person with whom I would converse. But here’s an outline of how I think the conversation might go.
Me: What do you believe about epistemology?
Them: I believe X.
Me: I believe that empiricism works, even if I don’t know why it works. I believe that if something is useful that’s sufficient to justify believing in it, at least up to the point where it stops being useful. This is because I think changing one’s epistemology only makes sense if it’s motivated by one’s values since truth is not necessarily an end in itself.
I think X is problematic because it ignores Y and assumes Z. Z is a case of bad science, and most scientists don’t Z.
What do you believe about morality?
Them: I believe A.
Me: I believe that morality is a guide to human behavior that seeks to discriminate between right and wrong behavior. However, I don’t believe that a moral system is necessarily objective in the traditional sense. I think that morality has to do with individual values and desires since desires are the only form of inherently motivational facts and are thus the key link between epistemic truth and moral guidance. I think individuals should pursue their values, although I often get confused when those values contradict.
I sort of believe A, in that _. But I disagree with A because X.
What do you think philosophy is and ought to be, if anything?
Them: Q.
Me: Honestly, I don’t know or particularly care about the definitions of words because I’m mainly only interested in things that achieve my values. But, I think that philosophy, whatever its specific definition, ought to be aimed towards the purpose of clarifying morality and epistemology because I think that would be a useful step towards achieving my individual values.
Thank you very much Chaos. I did not realize that my post came off as abrasive, I appreciate you pointing that out. Your example sounds quite reasonable and is more along the lines of what I was looking for.
Your post didn’t come across as abrasive, Luke’s did. Sorry for my bad communication.
Based on the previous paragraphs, this should probably end with “because ~X.”
I didn’t have any specific format in mind, but you’d be right otherwise.