Well, it has been some time since Julia and I have done one of those fun "you ask the question, we try to come up with an answer" type of episodes for the Rationally Speaking podcast. We are going to tape one in a few weeks, so here is your chance to ask whatever you like within the broad range of the RS universe, from science to philosophy, from pseudoscience, well, to pseudophilosophy!
Go ahead, the comments board is open...
This should be a fun one to hear the answer to: What is philosophy? (The Philosophy Bites hosts are known to frequently ask this question of their guests.)
ReplyDeleteI know both of you have made allusions to this topic in the past, but I can't recall if you have actually discussed it in depth.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know how much you think that works of fiction (books, movies, TV shows, etc.) can influence somebody's rationality, skepticism, critical thinking, etc.
I personally get angry when there is a stereotypical skeptic character that ends up being proven wrong, but I wonder how much this representation ends up affecting the way that non-skeptics view things such as rationality, skepticism and critical thinking.
Similarly, there are plenty of good examples of skepticism in fiction that can have a positive impact. I'm sure I'm not the only person to say this, but Scooby Doo is probably the best example of the triumph of skepticism!
Do you think that it is incidental that many popularizers of science, science advocates and the most famous science figures, come from two main fields: biology and physics? In the last 50 years or so, in the past it was Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins,and today you have Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Mario Livio, Jared Diamond, Matt Ridley. Why aren't there chemists or geologists out there that write popular books and talk about science to the same extent? Is it because biologists and physicists deal with more fundamental questions about the world and its origin? I wonder what are your thoughts about this.
ReplyDeleteSorry in advance for the long question. Hope it comes off right.
ReplyDeleteI recently had a discussion with a friend about economics, its status as a science, or at least compared to fields like Physics, Biology, etc(the hard sciences). Long story short, he ended up arguing that the only reason economics is not a "hard science" is because we (currently) lack the technology to make it so. In other words, he argues that if one were able to know all of the parts of whatever system that one was trying to make predictions for, down to the atoms, and granting that one had the computing power, that ones predictions would always be 100%.
So, what are your thoughts about this? Is economics only limited by imperfect knowledge and computing power? Is an individual human's nature ultimately reducible to the interactions of elementary particles, or is there possibly something emergent? Or, is there something emergent about societies, even if the individual's behavior is reducible down to the quarks?
If everything that is in principle reducible to physics by a godlike omniscient being with infinite computing power, is "science"... then the word "science" is in danger of becoming pretty much meaninglessly broad.
DeleteI would want to learn Massimo's DETAILED answer to "Why philosophy is the best way to live?"
ReplyDeleteIn one of the earlier podcasts where Massimo talked about Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, near the end Julia asked what he thought was the best way to live, and he said that (paraphrasing) a philosopher's life is the best life available to man. Julia offered some argument (viz. that those who are not philosophers don't know what they are missing, so what difference does that makes for them?) but since the time was over there was no detailed explanation.
JULIA, if you can probe on that statement of Massimo's ("Philosopher's life is the best life") with your counter questions, I would love that.
PS: I too believe philosophy is the best way, just want to hear how close my reasons are to that of Massimo's. :)
Yes, this is a great idea for a question. Keep him on his toes, Julia!
DeleteWhy do most philosophers lean towards objective aesthetic value?
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with this post in that the goal of philosophy should be to kill itself?
What are you thoughts on time travel? Movies and tv incorporate it into their stories all the time, but is something missing from my brain when it cant find time travel anything but illogical?
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of political brouhahas that have at their heart a disagreement about real or perceived "victim blaming." This came up for example in the murders by Afghan mobs last year of UN workers, incited by Terry Jones' burning of Qur'ans. More prosaically, every year I read about some unPC police chief who gets pilloried for telling women not to walk alone at night or wear "risky" clothing, in order to reduce the chances of attack. And there are hints of victim-blaming sentiment in some people's reactions to the Trayvon Martin shooting.
ReplyDeleteIn all cases, you have the "Perpetrators must bear 100% of the blame, period!" camp loudly at odds with the "But surely it's wrong to knowingly be a part of a causal chain leading to violence by others!" camp.
So should we ever blame any victims, and if so, under what circumstances?
And also should a victim be blamed for being intrinsically or inherently too dumb to know better.
DeleteThis is a great question!
DeleteI personally think the perpetrators can't be excused from whatever is the legal punishment for the crime. However, the victim also sort-of deserves some blame (though maybe not punishment) if s/he's knowingly being a part of the causality. This blame (to be expressed as reproach) should serve as heads up for future behavior.
Say there's this rich man who carries a thick wad of money in a bar and keeps in on the table to signal that he is powerful and deserves preferential attention by the servers, and when he walks out of the bar, he gets mugged. Now, should the mugger be punished? Of course. Did this man do anything illegal? No. But any sensible person would say that it was his fault that he invited the mugger. And he SHOULD know better.
I think being inherently too dumb can't be an excuse. If my legs don't function, I don't go hiking. If someone is too dumb, they shouldn't go out in the world where dumbness will be punished. We don't give guns in the hands of monkeys because they won't know better than to shoot randomly. What I am saying is, if people are engaging in the world, they ought to have sufficient understanding. Or there are social costs, because however we feel about it, the reality doesn't conform to out idealist concepts.
TYPO: to our* idealist concepts.
DeleteI basically agree with you, Darshan, but I can see the other point of view just as easily. That's why it's sort of a paradox for me! Consider the case of Terry Jones. The guy was part of a causal chain leading to murders, there's no question. On the other hand, the Afghan mob MADE him part of that causal chain, and tomorrow, if they so desire, they can decide I shouldn't wear black socks, and riot if I do - effectively blackmailing me. So blaming Jones in this case looks like it has the unintended side-effect of increasing the effectiveness of riot & murder as political tools - not a good idea! Victim-blaming can expose us to moral blackmail.
DeleteHmm. I think we should evaluate at each case separately with due regard to its unique context.
DeleteMost of the times I have argued with this point it's been about women wearing provocative clothes and getting ogled/harassed/assaulted. Rape has many causes, but it can't be denied that there IS a link b/w provocative clothes and arousal of sexual urges in men. In fact, that's the reason those clothes serve their purpose and are popular. Women wear them to appear desirable and exert certain power (just like the 'rich man in the bar' in the example of the previous comment) on their environment. It's sexual politics. So wearing such clothes is fundamentally tricky business. Some times their 'strategy' gets punished. So, I don't see why we can't tell them to not invite trouble by wearing provocative clothes.
(adding to the above comment..)
DeleteNote that I don't say to punish women wearing provocative clothes, or excuse (or reduce punishment of) the rapist. No, because we want to move ahead into the society where people don't assault women for whatever reasons. But while we are not there, do these women deserve reproach? I would say yes; because they 'knowingly' enter the risk.
Punishing the victim in such cases seems absurd. That's because the victim might just be dumb, and we wouldn't want to punish that. But we can sure ask them (and exert social pressure) to learn better to live responsibly. Otherwise many take advantage of it, and the society pays costs. That's why I believe whatever is legal is not necessarily ethical too.
Seen through the glasses of law, the perpetrator deserves the full blame (and legal punishment with that). Through the glasses of ethics, however, in come cases I do see a slightly different picture.
How does evolution relate to our moral intuitions? How does culture relate to our moral intuitions?
ReplyDeleteIf possible, would mind uploading achieve the aim of moving ourselves to another less susceptible substrate?
Do you mean less susceptible to bias?
DeleteNo, Ian. The assumption with mind uploading is that it would move your mind from it's biological substrate to a non-biological substrate (e.g., digital), is this assumption correct? Would we instead be creating a clone? Is there any meaningful difference between the two if the biological mind is "turned off" and then moved or cloned to another substrate?
DeleteDescribe your antiparticle, a version of yourself with all your higher order preferences about rationalism reversed. What job would anti-you have? What parts of anti-you's life would be easier? Would anti-you have more money, a bigger gut, fewer lovers?
ReplyDeleteMine wouldn't be somebody with opposing philosophical opinions. Mine would just be an utterly unreflective person, effortlessly absorbing whatever beliefs and attitudes his peer group threw at him, attending endless sports games and going out drinking, never thinking about what is true or how he lives, doing his job well enough to get by, but not more than that, being sufficiently solicitous of his lovers to keep them, but not more than that, responding to all perceived slights with the thoughtless, self-righteous indignation of one who rationalizes his own self-interest so smoothly as to fool even himself...
DeleteHa. Interesting. I think anti-me would be more popular, have less cognitive dissonance, and make less money. He might also live longer. Keith Stanovich says hypocrisy is the price of living a reflective life. "Nice," is an easy set of heuristics, and being a good listener doesn't take much cognition at all.
DeleteCan you please comment on Lawrence Krauss' recent comments regarding how philosophy hasn't progressed in 2000 years (http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/03/response-to-lawrence-krauss-comments.html) and more general comments from scientists who are non-philosophers arguing that science has 'eclipsed' philosophy?
ReplyDelete@Justin:
ReplyDeleteWow, I can't believe Krauss said all that! Thanks for the link.
What is "evidence"? What makes an observation evidence that supports a particular conclusion, rather than simply an unrelated bit of trivia?
ReplyDeleteQuestion for Julia and Massimo:
ReplyDeleteHow do you address a philosophically "toxic" argument? To give an example, for example the discussion about Patriotism and Security measures. Some people when discussing this, their standard answer is "Of course you will conclude that, because you are not a patriot, therefore you can't see how X or Y is harmful to the country". The problem is that whatever is your argument, you can always circle around it this way.
I've seen this used in different contexts, some beneficial (from my point of view) like "mansplaining" (whatever argument a man would advance as a counteraction to the feminist argument is countered by pointing that clearly their argument is faulty because of their limited perception as a member of the favored group), to damaging ones (again from my point of view)like "whitewashing" racism (yeah, of course I'm not a racist, is just that you are not white, therefore you can't see how oppressed I am and how you are affecting my wellbeing).
The problem I have is that sometimes I find myself using the style of argument (mostly with mansplaining) but then I have some issues with the fact that is philosophically impenetrable (my opponent can't really use any argument against me). The fact is that if it's happening, there must be an error in my application, because I feel like any argument should be able to be opposed(to be philosophically penetrable).
And obviously this is in the context that none of the members of the discussion are being jerks(that is a completely different thing), but they are actually trying to discuss the topic seriously.
I think this has been briefly addressed here and there in the podcast (as in one sentence or two) but I'd like to know what is Massimo's and Julia's take on the whole debate around statistical tests, their usefulness, their alternatives, the way they are taught to students.
ReplyDeleteIn different research fields there are used constantly (especially in biology, psychology...) in some others (some fields in physics for example) scientists do not even know what they are...
I'm paraphrasing but some people have argued that they make little sense from a popperian point of view (Paul Meehl), others have sayed that the statistical methods taught to students nowadays is a big incoherent mix of often conflicting views between "Pearsonian" and "Fisherian" statistics that is more akin to ritualistic handwashing than sane and clear statistical thinking (Gerd Gigerenzer).
There is at least a whole book on the issue : "What If There Were No Significance Tests?" in part accessible on googlebooks.
Oh, here's another question.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably uncontroversial around here that choosing to believe anything is a major warning sign of cognitive malfunction (the only counterexample I can think of is where you are trying to override a strong-but-wrong intuition with a solidly backed-up propositional belief). I would also add "unethical" in most cases of choosing to believe.
But is it psychologically possible to choose to believe something you think is wrong?
For myself, I think the answer might actually be yes, which is rather terrifying. And certainly people say "I choose to believe" without seeming to think it's self-contradictory.
Dear Massimo and Julia;
ReplyDeletemy question is from philosophy of science. Few days back I started reading it through TTC course by Jeffery L Casser; there he discussed at some length the Nelson Goodman’s new riddle of induction which totally went over my head, it will be nice if you could explain it.