Sorry, short on time, can’t dig up links. Take a look at Inadequate Equilibria.
I think philosophy it might be less the case than any empirical field. Experts in biology have perhaps run experiments and seen the results, etc., whereas philosophy is arguments on the page that could easily be very detached from reality.
And “more time spent” has some value, but not that much. There are people who’ve spent 10x more time driving a car than me, but are much worse because they weren’t practicing and training the way I was. And more relevantly, you might say “yes, they’ve spent more time but they’re saying X, and X is clearly wrong, so I don’t trust them.
For philosophy, I think a major reason I distrust most philosophers is they’ve only been thinking about philosophy, whereas I think you’re a much better thinker when you’ve engaged with more of the world and more domains, e.g. your philosophical thinking gets better having studied physics and maths and biology and neuroscience, and most philosophers simply haven’t.
For philosophy, I think a major reason I distrust most philosophers is they’ve only been thinking about philosophy
Well, Chalmers has studied maths. The fact that someone is currently employed as a philosopher doesn’t tell you much about their background, or side interests.
Trust , of course , is irrelevant. You should consider the arguments.
philosophy is arguments on the page that could easily be very detached from reality.
That would include the many untestable philosophical claims in the Sequences, of course.
Sorry, short on time, can’t dig up links. Take a look at Inadequate Equilibria.
I think philosophy it might be less the case than any empirical field. Experts in biology have perhaps run experiments and seen the results, etc., whereas philosophy is arguments on the page that could easily be very detached from reality.
And “more time spent” has some value, but not that much. There are people who’ve spent 10x more time driving a car than me, but are much worse because they weren’t practicing and training the way I was. And more relevantly, you might say “yes, they’ve spent more time but they’re saying X, and X is clearly wrong, so I don’t trust them.
For philosophy, I think a major reason I distrust most philosophers is they’ve only been thinking about philosophy, whereas I think you’re a much better thinker when you’ve engaged with more of the world and more domains, e.g. your philosophical thinking gets better having studied physics and maths and biology and neuroscience, and most philosophers simply haven’t.
Well, Chalmers has studied maths. The fact that someone is currently employed as a philosopher doesn’t tell you much about their background, or side interests.
Trust , of course , is irrelevant. You should consider the arguments.
That would include the many untestable philosophical claims in the Sequences, of course.