tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post9007693735773528911..comments2023-10-14T09:40:06.690-05:00Comments on Jean Kazez: Are Philosophers Experts?Jean Kazezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-29714899659882228622010-06-07T10:25:04.596-05:002010-06-07T10:25:04.596-05:00I hadn't heard of the preface paradox until Je...I hadn't heard of the preface paradox until Jean brought it up and the discussion on B&W was generally informative. Modest proposal: paradoxoi tell us that how we think is not always adequate to the way things are and that they have their power through being a felt disjunction. It's just that which makes the regular punter recoil and say that's nonsense and not informative michael reidynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-48749266147474102672010-06-04T16:48:59.755-05:002010-06-04T16:48:59.755-05:00But this particular dispute doesn't seem like ...But this particular dispute doesn't seem like a good example, for the simple reason that Pessin's article was published at the Huffington Post. It was written for a general audience, so a general audience gets to say what doesn't (to the g.a.) make sense, hang together, etc.<br /><br />What I objected to was the specific word "certain" and the unmarked move from that to &Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-62727986452430700272010-06-03T16:51:03.161-05:002010-06-03T16:51:03.161-05:00The average average Joe hasn't the least inter...The average average Joe hasn't the least interest in philosophy or in reading anything more complex than a menu in MacDonalds and thus, isn't likely to want to judge your work. However, there is another average Joe, the average literate Joe, who reads the articles that Peter Singer from time to time writes in the New York Times, and who might well be able to offer a few words of s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-66602898671547245422010-06-03T14:05:34.296-05:002010-06-03T14:05:34.296-05:00The average Joe has no education in philosophy, a ...The average Joe has no education in philosophy, a difficult time getting a grip on philosophical ideas, not great critical thinking or logic skills, and lots of susceptibility to superstition and nonsense (the majority of Americans believe in angels, around half don't believe in evolution, etc). So...I should let a jury of average Joes be the judge of my work in philosophy? I don't thinkJean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-31800895588974330832010-06-03T11:15:15.564-05:002010-06-03T11:15:15.564-05:00Wayne: I suspect that you're idealizing real...Wayne: I suspect that you're idealizing real flesh and blood philosophers when you say that they are only interested in investigating the truth: I imagine that some are trying to defend positions that deep in their hearts they suspect are not true, others are trying to demonstrate how brilliant they are, others are trying to get tenure, others are directly in the pay of one or another s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-84994960208106209522010-06-03T10:49:01.248-05:002010-06-03T10:49:01.248-05:00One of the problems here is that of relevance to t...One of the problems here is that of relevance to the concerns of the "average joe." <br /><br />For example one could develop highly technical expertise about the concept of substance in medieval philosophy, but no one outside of a tiny group of scholars on the subject is likely to find the insights of the experts useful to modern life. <br /><br />Expertise about "making argumentsFaustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-23393975984468506862010-06-03T10:38:49.973-05:002010-06-03T10:38:49.973-05:00amos- okay lets run with your example a bit. The...amos- okay lets run with your example a bit. The average joe knows something is fishy about the ontological argument. Philosophers think so too. But the average joes and the philosophes' intuitions about the "fishiness" might be simply wrong. The average joe looks at a young black man and thinks, "dangerous."<br /><br />But philosophers can come back from this Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-83031750848559832982010-06-02T20:36:42.681-05:002010-06-02T20:36:42.681-05:00Two kinds of problems are being confused here, t...Two kinds of problems are being confused here, technical philosophical problems, such as the paradox one, and life problems. In the first case, the average Joe or the above average Joe has spent zero time considering the issue and should (reminder to myself) keep his mouth shut. Regarding life problems, for example, those posed by Mr. Benatar, rather than accept Benatar's s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-82365996858549338892010-06-02T20:28:46.358-05:002010-06-02T20:28:46.358-05:00Wayne--I'm with you on this and like the sport...Wayne--I'm with you on this and like the sports analogy. Sorry to be so brief-- I'm busy with a billion things.Jean Kazeznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-38335173648800357142010-06-02T19:59:05.061-05:002010-06-02T19:59:05.061-05:00amos- I'd have to disagree with you on that p...amos- I'd have to disagree with you on that pint. No doubt there would be the chance that people stumble upon the "correct" or "better" answer by accident, or because the answer is rather easy one. But given a difficult judgment, I'd say that a philosopher would more likely make a better judgment than the average joe. <br /><br />The average joe just doesn't Waynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-1364038460511494842010-06-02T19:21:11.704-05:002010-06-02T19:21:11.704-05:00Maybe the difference between lawyers and juries is...Maybe the difference between lawyers and juries is in some senses comparable to that between philosophers and average Joes.<br />Lawyers (and philosophers)are a lot better at thinking up arguments and justifications for their positions than lay people are, but I'm not at all sure that <br />their conclusions are necessarily more reasonable, more sensible or even wiser.s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-25530415273190627122010-06-02T15:01:23.946-05:002010-06-02T15:01:23.946-05:00I think that philosophers are considered experts i...I think that philosophers are considered experts in the same way that atheletes are considered "experts" in their competition. When a biologist says, "xyz" the average person isn't going to engage in science to determine if s/he is correct. They just don't know how to, or if they do, they botch it up completely (see global warming and evolution as examples). So theyWaynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08627147979307495870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-49450665929689649882010-06-02T14:23:51.284-05:002010-06-02T14:23:51.284-05:00Yes, the spectrum of what counts as philosophy is ...Yes, the spectrum of what counts as philosophy is broader, so it's less obvious where expertise comes in, but I think the subject of paradoxes is well over the line. It's a technical area of the field, as even a quick look at the literature makes obvious.<br /><br />There's also a spectrum in biology, from the elementary to the advanced. You can say "evolution, not creation&Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-15085642721148130952010-06-02T14:04:58.653-05:002010-06-02T14:04:58.653-05:00I like Ed's comment.I like Ed's comment.Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-26763190225536719832010-06-02T11:59:40.285-05:002010-06-02T11:59:40.285-05:00For many of us it's not clear where the line b...For many of us it's not clear where the line between "philosophy" as it is used in everyday life ends and "philosophy" as a rigorous academic discipline begins. This confusion does not exist in biology.<br /><br />Like most people I have what I consider to be my personal philosophy of life which I employ to tackle many of the decisions I encounter. This seems to be Edhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06399341362068645241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-87811741684108902892010-06-02T11:03:49.892-05:002010-06-02T11:03:49.892-05:00The thing is, my education in philosophy is actual...The thing is, my education in philosophy is actually primarily in the technical areas--philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, which I studied at (this sounds like bragging--sorry) great places with great people. I entirely respect that stuff and don't think it's a game, even though at the moment I'm doing something completely different.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-3563452803747935352010-06-02T10:55:37.553-05:002010-06-02T10:55:37.553-05:00The problem seems to be that philosophy ranges fro...The problem seems to be that philosophy ranges from cogent moral arguments like those of Peter Singer to the recent discussions about paradoxes, which in my non-expert opinion are a bit like playing chess. It would be difficult to claim that philosophy as practiced by Singer (or by Nussbaum or by Nietzsche or by Plato) is a game. By the way, insofar as philosophy takes a distance from its s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-31353148205803430632010-06-02T10:45:57.692-05:002010-06-02T10:45:57.692-05:00So no Wittgensteinian language games for you?
I ...So no Wittgensteinian language games for you? <br /><br />I jest. I never pegged you for someone who thinks philosophy is a game. As a staunch realist that's not going to wash. I'm just saying that a lot of people from science land seem to think of philosophy that way (as when string theory is described as "little better than philosophy"). <br /><br />And then, a lot of Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-16424788684656346552010-06-02T10:34:01.235-05:002010-06-02T10:34:01.235-05:00Amos, What I'm complaining about is gross ove...Amos, What I'm complaining about is gross over-certainty.<br />As to my own blogging-- When I talk about anything technical (which is not often), I'm certainly not inviting anyone to go beyond the level of confidence they're entitled to, given what they've read and how long they've thought about the issues.<br /><br />Faust, My respect for philosophy is greater than that (Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592593002719828153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-89716030115961101952010-06-02T10:12:00.221-05:002010-06-02T10:12:00.221-05:00Reading some literature on string theory (popular ...Reading some literature on string theory (popular science stuff) I have run across the comment (paraphrase): "but because string theory is so hard to test, some scientists say that string theory is little better than philosophy."<br /><br />When philosophy is described in this way, it is being classed as a discipline that is not grounded in reality in the same way that science is. One Faustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8310450667755637519.post-4397942638324401992010-06-02T10:00:39.809-05:002010-06-02T10:00:39.809-05:00Agreed that the experts know more, but when you pu...Agreed that the experts know more, but when you put a question in a blog, it's an invitation for all of us to put in our two cents or our one cent. You can't (I think) have it both ways: be experts and open the discussion to all comers. When you publish an entry in a blog, you're asking the masses what we think, you're implicitly saying that the opinion of the masses s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.com