If you wouldn't confidently proclaim that string theory is false without having read about string theory, you should adopt the same attitude towards philosophical views
Mary Midgley repeatedly called out scientists for dismissing philosophy and then doing it poorly. However, I don’t think philosophers and scientists should “stay in their lanes.” There are have many scientists who were good philosophers and traditionally the two subjects have complemented and inspired each other. I would hate to see a world where the two disciplines didn’t talk to each (or to artists).
I went back and looked at my highlights from Midgley's "The Myths we live by." Tons of comments aligned with your essay (let me know if the link doesn't work)
Stop talking nonsense. There is nothing about morality that cannot be deduced by a strictly average person with common-sense. Marx got it right when he said that morality is an artefact of a particular society at a particular time. Morality comes from the bottom up, not from philosophical elites.
I feel your frustration about the absence of humility when sciency people stray out of their lane to opine on everyone else's disciplines. It's as if having some sciency cognitive leanings makes a lot of people less - rather than more - insightful. The most rigid opinionators I know on other epistemic fields all have sciency backgrounds.
Thank you for this post. I mostly agree. I’m not a philosopher myself, and I always found arrogance about philosophy to be the general norm. Which is why I don’t listen to Lawrence Krauss, as his views on anything not physics are pedestrian and almost ignorant. Carlo Rovelli and Tim Maudlin are way more interesting.
If you hang around a university long you discover that each department loves to disparage the others. The scientists think the humanities are a waste of time, at best entertaining hobbies; the humanities folks think scientists and engineers are heartless drones; the engineers think the physicists are too theoretical; the mathematicians are horrified by the shoddy math done by everyone else; the anthropologists and psychologists only agree that the sociologists should be driven off campus. Just ignore it. Read everything, talk to everyone, go to any lecture with a good speaker. Oh, and read “Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world.”
If I deny the existence of gravity, presumably I will fall off a cliff and cease denying anything.
If I embrace nonsensical philosophical postpositions, I will not vanish in a puff of logic. Indeed, as long as I conform to social expectations, I may even benefit from my outlandish positions.
Surely this is a relevant difference? I believe I am plagiarizing (and probably bastardizing) Orwell here.
People who historically denied what we take today to be accurate views of gravity, didn't tend to fall off cliffs. In part, this is because their cultures produced false explanations that were just good enough to spare them such fates ("the cliff god is angry if you bother him too long, and will feed you to his mother, the river god"). But it's mostly because natural selection had resulted in their having instincts not to hang around cliff edges, let alone jump off them.
This hardly even represents any rational position stated in the post. Advice: don’t make “nonsensical philosophical postpositions” to argue against “nonsensical philosophical postpositions.” And no, you’re not plagiarizing or bastardizing Orwell. It’s your interpretation of Orwell.
I truly have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
Except for the last part. Thanks for explaining to the world that I am merely “interpreting” Orwell. Your enlightened verb choice will no doubt echo through the ages.
Mary Midgley repeatedly called out scientists for dismissing philosophy and then doing it poorly. However, I don’t think philosophers and scientists should “stay in their lanes.” There are have many scientists who were good philosophers and traditionally the two subjects have complemented and inspired each other. I would hate to see a world where the two disciplines didn’t talk to each (or to artists).
I said do that or learn philosophy
I know you did, but I’m saying the “or” isn’t acceptable. They should all learn some philosophy.
Agreed! But if they’re not going to, they shouldn’t shit on philosophy
I went back and looked at my highlights from Midgley's "The Myths we live by." Tons of comments aligned with your essay (let me know if the link doesn't work)
https://www.goodreads.com/notes/25655291-the-myths-we-live-by/167774558-john-gossman?ref=rsp
Stop talking nonsense. There is nothing about morality that cannot be deduced by a strictly average person with common-sense. Marx got it right when he said that morality is an artefact of a particular society at a particular time. Morality comes from the bottom up, not from philosophical elites.
I don't understand the point of comments like this. You state that you disagree very energetically, but don't provide the slightest hint of argument.
I feel your frustration about the absence of humility when sciency people stray out of their lane to opine on everyone else's disciplines. It's as if having some sciency cognitive leanings makes a lot of people less - rather than more - insightful. The most rigid opinionators I know on other epistemic fields all have sciency backgrounds.
Thank you for this post. I mostly agree. I’m not a philosopher myself, and I always found arrogance about philosophy to be the general norm. Which is why I don’t listen to Lawrence Krauss, as his views on anything not physics are pedestrian and almost ignorant. Carlo Rovelli and Tim Maudlin are way more interesting.
If you hang around a university long you discover that each department loves to disparage the others. The scientists think the humanities are a waste of time, at best entertaining hobbies; the humanities folks think scientists and engineers are heartless drones; the engineers think the physicists are too theoretical; the mathematicians are horrified by the shoddy math done by everyone else; the anthropologists and psychologists only agree that the sociologists should be driven off campus. Just ignore it. Read everything, talk to everyone, go to any lecture with a good speaker. Oh, and read “Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world.”
You didn't even mention the most constantly horrified group: the statisticians!
If I deny the existence of gravity, presumably I will fall off a cliff and cease denying anything.
If I embrace nonsensical philosophical postpositions, I will not vanish in a puff of logic. Indeed, as long as I conform to social expectations, I may even benefit from my outlandish positions.
Surely this is a relevant difference? I believe I am plagiarizing (and probably bastardizing) Orwell here.
People who historically denied what we take today to be accurate views of gravity, didn't tend to fall off cliffs. In part, this is because their cultures produced false explanations that were just good enough to spare them such fates ("the cliff god is angry if you bother him too long, and will feed you to his mother, the river god"). But it's mostly because natural selection had resulted in their having instincts not to hang around cliff edges, let alone jump off them.
This hardly even represents any rational position stated in the post. Advice: don’t make “nonsensical philosophical postpositions” to argue against “nonsensical philosophical postpositions.” And no, you’re not plagiarizing or bastardizing Orwell. It’s your interpretation of Orwell.
I truly have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
Except for the last part. Thanks for explaining to the world that I am merely “interpreting” Orwell. Your enlightened verb choice will no doubt echo through the ages.