That's a particularly interesting tactic. I run into folks who often make some sort of STEM > Humanities argument, and I always feel a direct rebuttal is rarely pithy or short enough to avoid...
This is because if you can get the person who has delivered the Buzz Aldrin fallacy to explain why they find the particular goal or end they’ve cited as valuable, worthwhile, etc., you have gotten them to start doing philosophy (and to be doing it somewhat poorly more often than not).
That's a particularly interesting tactic. I run into folks who often make some sort of STEM > Humanities argument, and I always feel a direct rebuttal is rarely pithy or short enough to avoid resembling that caricature of a philosopher who "argues about stuff that doesn't matter."
Ask them why they think that STEM education is more worthwhile than philosophy, and then watch them philosophize about why they think that STEM education is more worthwhile than philosophy.
Ask them why they think that STEM education is more worthwhile than philosophy, and then watch them philosophize about why they think that STEM education is more worthwhile than philosophy.
I feel that your selection paints an unfair picture of philosophy. I don’t know why you focuses on postmodernism, since it is my impression that most contemporary philosophy is not postmodernist....
I feel that your selection paints an unfair picture of philosophy. I don’t know why you focuses on postmodernism, since it is my impression that most contemporary philosophy is not postmodernist.
Of course there are needlessly obscure philosophers out there, but some arguments really are dense, specialized, and highly technical, and therefore hard to translate for the uninitiated. This also happens in science and mathematics.
At the same time, there are numerous approachable philosophers that serve as counter examples to your main point. Bertrand Russell, J. L. Austin, John Searle, and Richard Rorty come to mind.
Also: the Stanford encyclopedia is frequently heavy on jargon and logical notation. I believe it is more of a resource for academics, and not really meant for the general public. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is way more approachable. And there’s always Wikipedia.
That is fair. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pretty good.
The problem with Wikipedia is that I find many articles on which I do have expertise woefully incomplete, so it seems to make sense that this also applies to articles about topics I don't have any expertise.
That is fair. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pretty good.
It's not really a gotcha, it's really just making a point at how fundamental something like philosophy is to the human experience - you philosophize literally any time you try to solve a problem...
It's not really a gotcha, it's really just making a point at how fundamental something like philosophy is to the human experience - you philosophize literally any time you try to solve a problem you are having or even discuss an idea with someone else - and that maybe by making people think about that, they can have a greater respect for the academic study of philosophy, understand its utility and importance, and hopefully even feel a bit disappointed that the educational system does not teach you how important these things really are.
I'm not advocating for anyone to get a degree in philosophy here. In fact, if you can avoid it, I'd highly recommend not going to college at all, at least until they get their shit together.
It seems pretty clear that some philosophical works are much better than others and even those that are historically important aren’t necessarily all that good? So I think an effective way to...
It seems pretty clear that some philosophical works are much better than others and even those that are historically important aren’t necessarily all that good? So I think an effective way to promote philosophy would be to recommend specific books or articles that you actually like, rather than defending it in general.
Something like you suggest is certainly helpful, but is outside of the article’s scope. The article is a criticism of the uninformed dismissal of philosophy, and I think it’s a compelling one....
Something like you suggest is certainly helpful, but is outside of the article’s scope. The article is a criticism of the uninformed dismissal of philosophy, and I think it’s a compelling one. There are numerous syllabi and introductions to great philosophical works out there. For instance, https://historyofphilosophy.net/.
Yeah, but a syllabus isn’t the same as a personal recommendation. I suspect a lot of “great” philosophical works aren’t read all that much? My current favorite philosophical work isn’t finished,...
Yeah, but a syllabus isn’t the same as a personal recommendation. I suspect a lot of “great” philosophical works aren’t read all that much?
My current favorite philosophical work isn’t finished, and its author doesn’t think of it as philosophy, though it talks about philosophical issues. In the Cells of the Eggplant by David Chapman.
It’s been a while, but I remember Sophie’s World being pretty good as a general overview.
The Buzz Aldrin fallacy is not limited to slights against philosophy (as is evidenced by Adrin’s sideswiping of poets and philosophers in the same breath.)
However, philosophy is certainly no stranger to the Buzz Aldrin fallacy, as evidenced by Lawrence Krauss’ attacks on philosophy after his philosophical book was challenged by philosophers and similar sorts of dismissals of philosophy from public champions of science like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye.
Disclaimer: I do not have theistic beliefs (that will be relevant) I think this... adversion to "philosophy" is shared among a lot of the so-called new atheist movement. And I think there's a...
Disclaimer: I do not have theistic beliefs (that will be relevant)
I think this... adversion to "philosophy" is shared among a lot of the so-called new atheist movement. And I think there's a reason that's seperate from the "STEM > Humanities" argument. What Krauss, Tyson, and Nye attempt to do, at least as it appears to me, is to promote a scientific understanding of the world, which for them seems to entail naturalism, materialism, and of course atheism.
Naturalism vs. Scientific Claims for the Existence of God
When confronted with arguments for God from Young Earth Creationists (or really any apologetic claiming scientific evidence), it certainly appears they (Krauss, Nye, Tyson) have absolutely knockdown rebuttals to these different claims. If you put one of these folks in a debate with someone defending YEC or scientific apologism, the result will be predictable.
Naturalism vs. Arguments for the Existence of God from Philosophy
When Krauss, Tyson, or Nye argue with what I'll call generally apologists trained in the philosophy of religion (natural theology++; folks like Ed Faser, Josh Rasmussen, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek) the result is quite different.
These folks are happy to concede what science can tell us about the natural world, which is a problem, since these defenders of science cannot use their massive arsenal of pro-science knowledge to win this sort of argument. What has happened is that they now find themselves in a position where they are outside their primary field of expertise.
Certain modern articulations of specific ontological arguments, certain strong articulations of the cosmological argument (e.g. the Kalam) alongside other modern arguments (e.g. "The Argument from the Unreasonable Applicability of Mathematics to Nature") require one to have a strong background in philosophy to even understand the argument, much less argue against them.
This leaves our hero's of naturalism a few options: learn more about analytic philosophy, concede that it's out of their lane, or reject "philosophy" altogether.
(Note: whether they accept it or not, rejecting "The Philosophy of Religion" is a stance inside of that field which one should be asked to defend, in the same way that "moral non-cognitivism" is a stance in the field of moral philosophy)
I feel like a lot of people fail to understand that "philosophy" as a broad concept is basically just the study of trying to find answers to questions. This is important, because it's important to...
I feel like a lot of people fail to understand that "philosophy" as a broad concept is basically just the study of trying to find answers to questions. This is important, because it's important to remember that when you apply mathematics or the scientific method in an attempt at answering some kind of question, you really are doing a kind of philosophizing. From here, you must recognize that there are plenty of kinds of valid questions that people would like answers to that the scientific method is simply not equipped to answer. Either you tell everyone with those kinds of questions "don't worry about it" or philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit.
I mean, that's often what these critics of the Philosophy of Religion often do; it certainly appears that, to them, if a question cannot be answered scientifically it isn't a question worth...
Either you tell everyone with those kinds of questions "don't worry about it" or philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit.
I mean, that's often what these critics of the Philosophy of Religion often do; it certainly appears that, to them, if a question cannot be answered scientifically it isn't a question worth talking about.
I think this is why a lot of "new atheists" get slaughtered in debates with philosophers of religion; they haven't examined their own philosophical beliefs, and are easily hand-held into making absurd or self-contradictory claims.
The best I've heard from the atheist camp in this regard so far is from Dr. Graham Oppy, and while he is exceedingly better equipped than his new atheist brethren for these sorts of debates, he certainly doesn't "destroy" or "debunk" these arguments from philosophy in ways that clearly earn him a win in the same way Nye can clearly debunk scientific claims from Ken Ham.
I think if so-called skeptics are going to be intellectually honest, they need to treat the philosophy of religion with the same respect that moral non-cognitivists treat moral philosophy.
I'm not a religious person, but I have a lot of respect for the philosophical notion of religion. However, I wasn't specifically looking to religion here, either. More making the broader point...
I'm not a religious person, but I have a lot of respect for the philosophical notion of religion. However, I wasn't specifically looking to religion here, either. More making the broader point that any philosophy has its limitations, including the scientific method, and how if a person is only willing to cling to one kind of philosophy, they are needlessly depriving themselves of a lot of interesting things to think about!
That's a particularly interesting tactic. I run into folks who often make some sort of STEM > Humanities argument, and I always feel a direct rebuttal is rarely pithy or short enough to avoid resembling that caricature of a philosopher who "argues about stuff that doesn't matter."
Ask them why they think that STEM education is more worthwhile than philosophy, and then watch them philosophize about why they think that STEM education is more worthwhile than philosophy.
I feel that your selection paints an unfair picture of philosophy. I don’t know why you focuses on postmodernism, since it is my impression that most contemporary philosophy is not postmodernist.
Of course there are needlessly obscure philosophers out there, but some arguments really are dense, specialized, and highly technical, and therefore hard to translate for the uninitiated. This also happens in science and mathematics.
At the same time, there are numerous approachable philosophers that serve as counter examples to your main point. Bertrand Russell, J. L. Austin, John Searle, and Richard Rorty come to mind.
Also: the Stanford encyclopedia is frequently heavy on jargon and logical notation. I believe it is more of a resource for academics, and not really meant for the general public. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is way more approachable. And there’s always Wikipedia.
That is fair. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pretty good.
It's not really a gotcha, it's really just making a point at how fundamental something like philosophy is to the human experience - you philosophize literally any time you try to solve a problem you are having or even discuss an idea with someone else - and that maybe by making people think about that, they can have a greater respect for the academic study of philosophy, understand its utility and importance, and hopefully even feel a bit disappointed that the educational system does not teach you how important these things really are.
I'm not advocating for anyone to get a degree in philosophy here. In fact, if you can avoid it, I'd highly recommend not going to college at all, at least until they get their shit together.
It seems pretty clear that some philosophical works are much better than others and even those that are historically important aren’t necessarily all that good? So I think an effective way to promote philosophy would be to recommend specific books or articles that you actually like, rather than defending it in general.
The article is a response to a general uninformed dismissal, not to the dismissal of any particular work.
Sure, but I still think specific examples work better than general arguments. (In theory. I’m not setting a good example here, am I?)
Something like you suggest is certainly helpful, but is outside of the article’s scope. The article is a criticism of the uninformed dismissal of philosophy, and I think it’s a compelling one. There are numerous syllabi and introductions to great philosophical works out there. For instance, https://historyofphilosophy.net/.
Yeah, but a syllabus isn’t the same as a personal recommendation. I suspect a lot of “great” philosophical works aren’t read all that much?
My current favorite philosophical work isn’t finished, and its author doesn’t think of it as philosophy, though it talks about philosophical issues. In the Cells of the Eggplant by David Chapman.
It’s been a while, but I remember Sophie’s World being pretty good as a general overview.
Again, that would be great. But that’s not what the article’s about :P
Disclaimer: I do not have theistic beliefs (that will be relevant)
I think this... adversion to "philosophy" is shared among a lot of the so-called new atheist movement. And I think there's a reason that's seperate from the "STEM > Humanities" argument. What Krauss, Tyson, and Nye attempt to do, at least as it appears to me, is to promote a scientific understanding of the world, which for them seems to entail naturalism, materialism, and of course atheism.
Naturalism vs. Scientific Claims for the Existence of God
When confronted with arguments for God from Young Earth Creationists (or really any apologetic claiming scientific evidence), it certainly appears they (Krauss, Nye, Tyson) have absolutely knockdown rebuttals to these different claims. If you put one of these folks in a debate with someone defending YEC or scientific apologism, the result will be predictable.
Naturalism vs. Arguments for the Existence of God from Philosophy
When Krauss, Tyson, or Nye argue with what I'll call generally apologists trained in the philosophy of religion (natural theology++; folks like Ed Faser, Josh Rasmussen, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek) the result is quite different.
These folks are happy to concede what science can tell us about the natural world, which is a problem, since these defenders of science cannot use their massive arsenal of pro-science knowledge to win this sort of argument. What has happened is that they now find themselves in a position where they are outside their primary field of expertise.
Certain modern articulations of specific ontological arguments, certain strong articulations of the cosmological argument (e.g. the Kalam) alongside other modern arguments (e.g. "The Argument from the Unreasonable Applicability of Mathematics to Nature") require one to have a strong background in philosophy to even understand the argument, much less argue against them.
This leaves our hero's of naturalism a few options: learn more about analytic philosophy, concede that it's out of their lane, or reject "philosophy" altogether.
(Note: whether they accept it or not, rejecting "The Philosophy of Religion" is a stance inside of that field which one should be asked to defend, in the same way that "moral non-cognitivism" is a stance in the field of moral philosophy)
I feel like a lot of people fail to understand that "philosophy" as a broad concept is basically just the study of trying to find answers to questions. This is important, because it's important to remember that when you apply mathematics or the scientific method in an attempt at answering some kind of question, you really are doing a kind of philosophizing. From here, you must recognize that there are plenty of kinds of valid questions that people would like answers to that the scientific method is simply not equipped to answer. Either you tell everyone with those kinds of questions "don't worry about it" or philosophy is a worthwhile pursuit.
I mean, that's often what these critics of the Philosophy of Religion often do; it certainly appears that, to them, if a question cannot be answered scientifically it isn't a question worth talking about.
I think this is why a lot of "new atheists" get slaughtered in debates with philosophers of religion; they haven't examined their own philosophical beliefs, and are easily hand-held into making absurd or self-contradictory claims.
The best I've heard from the atheist camp in this regard so far is from Dr. Graham Oppy, and while he is exceedingly better equipped than his new atheist brethren for these sorts of debates, he certainly doesn't "destroy" or "debunk" these arguments from philosophy in ways that clearly earn him a win in the same way Nye can clearly debunk scientific claims from Ken Ham.
I think if so-called skeptics are going to be intellectually honest, they need to treat the philosophy of religion with the same respect that moral non-cognitivists treat moral philosophy.
I'm not a religious person, but I have a lot of respect for the philosophical notion of religion. However, I wasn't specifically looking to religion here, either. More making the broader point that any philosophy has its limitations, including the scientific method, and how if a person is only willing to cling to one kind of philosophy, they are needlessly depriving themselves of a lot of interesting things to think about!