Comments on: Academic Ideals

By: Overcoming Bias : Academia’s Function

Overcoming Bias : Academia’s Function — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:00:53 +0000

[...] many times here on my view that academia functions mainly to signal, much like art and sport. (See here here here here here here here here here.). But for Andrew’s sake, let’s lay out the [...]

By: Barbar

Barbar — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 03:57:20 +0000

Well, if someone actually debated Richard on a philosophy issue he thought he had been resolved for good, that might throw some cold water on the “academic philosophy debates are purely manufactured by the Big Philosophy Lobby” thesis.

Has anyone ever wondered how their own beliefs are caused by the truth, while the existence of differing beliefs is caused by institutional incentives, blind self-interest, wishful thinking, and other pathologies? It’s an interesting phenomenon.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:07:12 +0000

For a so-called “rationalist” community, some who comment here seem lamentably more fond of name-calling than rational argument.

As a general rule, asserting one’s mere disagreement is not very interesting. (Add name-calling into the mix and one probably qualifies as a ‘troll’.) If one were to offer counterarguments, or reasons to support one’s contrary assertions, then one might actually be worth reading.

By: Zac

Zac — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:52:57 +0000

While I do agree there are many "solved" issues in philosophy in much the same way as there are in the sciences, the Examples of Solved Philsophy referenced here contains few. Some highlights of the list of supposedly "solved" issues are: "rational egoism is false" ; "capitalism is not intrinsically just: libertarianism must be defended on consequentialist grounds" ... Is this guy disingenuous or just very deluded?

By: Douglas Knight

Douglas Knight — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:34:53 +0000

Richard,
Most of your examples are pathetic. In the comments, you say that many are failings of the “untutored.” I would say the opposite: that they are almost entirely the fault of philosophers. Aside from straw men, some were taken by philosophers because of institutional incentives to be controversial or to take simple positions. Others are the result badgering laymen to take precise positions, but are much worse than the effective beliefs of said laymen, even if the effective beliefs are largely incoherent.

Maybe “institutional incentives to be simple” is not so different from “badgering laymen to be precise.”

By: Michael Martin

Michael Martin — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:01:57 +0000

Maybe it’s just my sample, but I’ve found the “brutal” worlds of finance, business, and law to include more people who are sincerely focused on their work than I have in the halls of academia. Academic goals are so abstract that even really smart people seem more interested in status fights than in focused goal-pursuit. My favorite people, of course, are the ones who can’t help getting interested in other goals despite the tangible ones in front of them in their day jobs. How can academics get distracted in an equivalent way?

By: Gwern Branwen

Gwern Branwen — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:35:37 +0000

> What do philosophers need research budgets for? What expenses does philosophizing entail?

Travel expenses to conferences & debates & appearances etc. Publication fees for open-access journals. Paying for grad students and TAs. The professor’s own salary and the administrative costs pertaining to him. Basic office supplies. Extensive libraries and periodical subscriptions and inter-library loan requests.* Web hosting. And so on; I’m sure I’ve forgotten some. Philosophy certainly has very minimal capital requirements, but it’s not zero, and for some areas like experimental philosophy the expenses could be comparable to psychology.

But at least it’s not billions and billions for a single particle accelerator.

* I once asked a librarian friend how much some of my harder ILL requests cost, and was a little shocked to learn that they could go up to 50$

By: Yvain

Yvain — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:03:11 +0000

Richard: Examples of Solved Philosophy Okay. I retract my belief in this being true of all philosophy, although I still think it's a problem in some of it.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:24:50 +0000

This isn’t the place to argue about global warming.

Professional philosophers know a lot, and the average philosophy journal article contains substantial insight.

By: nazgulnarsil

nazgulnarsil — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:15:48 +0000

note the word “uproar” automaton. There is no dispute that the levels of C02 in the atmosphere are increasing. There is also little dispute that humans are directly responsible. However, because we are directly responsible we are vastly overestimating how much of an impact it will have due to a bias our culture seems to have towards human tampering.
Let’s look at a non-hysterical interpretation of the data:
1) Temperature increase corresponds to the logarithm of C02 increase. This means a doubling of C02 levels produces a constant temperature increase.
2) An extrapolation of the rise in C02 from 1900 to now indicates that it will double by 2200 if nothing is done to curb use. Let’s be pessimistic and say it will double by 2100.
3) Doubling C02 increases the radiation absorption of by about 3.8W/m^2 over the present value of 1366 W/m^2, or about 0.3%.

how much does that radiation increase correspond to a temperature increase? This is called climate sensitivity and there is no legitimate scientific consensus on it because NO ONE KNOWS. We have no control earth to test it on. In order to know this we would need an accurate model of the earth’s atmosphere.

But let’s go with the party-line for a moment. Say the radiation increase corresponds to a 2 degree centigrade average temperature increase. Is this a bad thing? Is anyone doing research on the potential benefits? I doubt it because no one thinks that way.

Put it another way: If you were declared grand emperor of Earth right now and someone came to you and said that over the next 100 years the amount of radiation absorbed by the earth will increase by .3% would preventing it be at the top of your priority list? Especially when the proposed solutions are exorbitantly expensive and their effectiveness is totally unknown?

I’m not saying it’s not a potential problem. But for the amount of resources we are devoting to it we could be solving much more pressing issues.