tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post116276434625913605..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Did you say experimental philosophy?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1166012610404786492006-12-13T07:23:00.000-05:002006-12-13T07:23:00.000-05:00The data and very notion of incorporating data int...The data and very notion of incorporating data into philosophical discourse is preconditioned from the very practice of preferring data--a normative assumption. The very essence of experience and cognition are concepts.<BR/><BR/>If you want to incorporate data into your philosophical intuitions by circulating data, then why don't you just go for a different PhD. Seriously. It doesn't need to be done. Instead, suspend the natural attitude "out of play." Philosophers cannot afford to take nothing for granted, and assuming the validity of empirically based research, when that preference is itself normatively driven, oversimplifies what it is we actually do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1165469607287826132006-12-07T00:33:00.000-05:002006-12-07T00:33:00.000-05:00I like the idea of experimental philosophy because...I like the idea of experimental philosophy because one could actually carry out Karl Popper's thought experiment, showing that the observation itself is value-laden (the same observation claiming to lead to the non- impartial hypothesis), where you ask a group of students in a room to "observe." The hypothetical result of course is without prior bias there is nothing to observe, proving the traditional scientific method unsound to that extent. I've always wanted to show videos of fish behavioral interactions (I study fish ecology) to a group of undergraduates and ask them to "observe," then link their observations with their demographics. The problem is, the more I think about this, the more it strikes me as sociology.Vodnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12995118547625442312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163119471205161742006-11-09T19:44:00.000-05:002006-11-09T19:44:00.000-05:00J Krehbiel wondered about the difference between n...J Krehbiel wondered about the difference between natural language philosophy and experimental philosophy. I'm pretty sure that Xphi has broader scope than natural language philosophy - the Stotz and Griffith's work at least was conducted without a focus on language (it required scientists to look at notional gene sequences) and seemed to be aimed at something other than conceptual analysis - they call it conceptual ecology and I can think of no better brief description. <BR/><BR/>That said - much Xphi does bear more than a passing resemblance to some work in the natural language tradition - but even here the differences are critical. The key difference being in which linguistic data count and how it is collected. Unlike Austin consulting his own intuitions about what is apt to say (and perhaps the intutions of his mates?) Xphi pursues the views of as many folk as they can get to talk their surveys. Typically these are non-specialists which means, with luck, that their intutions are not theoretically 'polluted'. <BR/><BR/>Hope that makes things a trifle clearer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163043737098277522006-11-08T22:42:00.000-05:002006-11-08T22:42:00.000-05:00Nothing to do with Karma. From my notes the talk w...Nothing to do with Karma. From my notes the talk was about how when most people say that X "caused" Y (usually referring to events that involve human actions) they use a moral assessment of "cause," not a neutral one. <BR/><BR/>For example, if faculty are not supposed to take pens from the office, and both the administrative assistant and a faculty pick a pen, leaving no pens available for others, the problem was "caused" by the faculty, according to most people. In fact, from a neutral perspective, the problem was caused by both people going for the last two available pen.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163013099434360552006-11-08T14:11:00.000-05:002006-11-08T14:11:00.000-05:00Sounds like the bit that sheldon quoted refers to ...Sounds like the bit that sheldon quoted refers to concepts like Karma. Is that what is meant?suffenushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03511402915799863609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1163012401608045282006-11-08T14:00:00.000-05:002006-11-08T14:00:00.000-05:00".....and found compelling evidence that actual pe...".....and found compelling evidence that actual people using common sense don't behave like untrained scientists at all, but instead tend to infuse notions such as causality with logically independent ones like moral responsibility."<BR/><BR/>I would like to hear more about this. Maybe in the context of an example so I know exactly what they were talking about.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1162944801426235032006-11-07T19:13:00.000-05:002006-11-07T19:13:00.000-05:00at first glance it does make me want to laughat first glance it does make me want to laughAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1162942125935446392006-11-07T18:28:00.000-05:002006-11-07T18:28:00.000-05:00Oh man... The fatwa is well worth it... SergeiOh man... The fatwa is well worth it... <BR/>SergeiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1162918293662416032006-11-07T11:51:00.000-05:002006-11-07T11:51:00.000-05:00Why do people always laugh when I say that?They ha...<I>Why do people always laugh when I say that?</I><BR/><BR/>They haven't seen Salman Rushdie's <A HREF="http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/sterling/mrsrushdie.jpg" REL="nofollow">wife</A>? For god's sake don't give up hope man! And accessorize as necessary.Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04036033846526893628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1162771125513990342006-11-05T18:58:00.000-05:002006-11-05T18:58:00.000-05:00RE: The "coolness" of philosophy. I don't wear an ...RE: The "coolness" of philosophy. I don't wear an earring, but I do frequently say of pursuing my Ph.D. in philosophy that, "I'm in it for the money and the chicks."<BR/><BR/>Why do people always laugh when I say that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com