
Bertrand Russell: The Value of Philosophy - byrneseyeview
http://paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html
======
robg
As a philosophy major, what initially geeked me about the brain is that we
could begin to understand philosophical problems in the material terms from
which they arise. My work has shown that the British Empiricists were right,
to a certain extent. Other work has shown that different forms of moralizing -
utilitarian and the categorical imperative - use different brain systems.
That's the story of philosophy in my eyes - asking questions and postulating
answers well before the tools were available to address them. The great
fracturing of science into different disciplines reflects how those questions
have been addressed as the proper tools have emerged in the history of
science.

A fun game is thinking about what philosophers would be doing if they had
today's shoulders to stand upon. Descartes no doubt would be in robotics. Hume
a neuroscientist. Spinoza in computer science. Heidegger wandering the
streets. Kant a Republican. Even more fun to think about is whether the
structure of their brains led them to their conclusions - less free thought
than self-discovery. Sort of like how Picasso is thought to have painted with
brain damage.

Of course, that historical perspective doesn't address the current state of
the field. To me, the modern philosophers are struggling to maintain their
"privileged" grip on problem spaces. And that's why I do neuroscience!

~~~
rkts
> different forms of moralizing - utilitarian and the categorical imperative -
> use different brain systems.

Whenever a neuroscientist gets involved in these debates, I see a lot of
claims like this. "Thinking about x uses brain system y, therefore [some
outrageous claim]."

In this case, you seem to be suggesting that the brain activity proves "both
types of morality are wired into us," but that doesn't follow at all. Brain
activity doesn't tell us whether utilitarianism or the categorical imperative
accurately model what is really happening in the brain, or whether the
corresponding thoughts and behaviors are innate or learned.

~~~
olavk
It is actually a scientific documented phenomenon that many people believe
outrageous claims as long as they seem to be justified by random neurobabble .
PDF: "The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations"
[http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Edls73/Assets/Weisberg-
neuro%20ex...](http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Edls73/Assets/Weisberg-
neuro%20explanations.pdf)

Quote: "Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a
psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically
consider the underlying logic of this explanation."

A summary from Language Log here:
[http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004578.h...](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004578.html)

~~~
robg
I know this exists because I've seen to happen and I shudder every time. But
it's not just just "neurobabble". It's possible to obfuscate in any domain.
The problem is: You can never be certain of what's babble and what's real
without doing the intellectual heavy lifting yourself. In neuroscience, my
ability to see a poorly designed study is only as good as the methods and
theories get closer to what I know. So I decline being a reviewer of
manuscripts if I don't know enough to sufficiently judge them.

------
Jd
Russell can be read as a critique of PG. As he says, there is value simply in
doing the thought experiments of philosophy even when this does not lead
towards any greater knowledge of truth. In theory, this should allow one to
greater appreciate what one does NOT know, which could (and, in my view,
should) make one more humble.

However, part of the problem of philosophy is it occasionally makes truth
claims about the nature of its work and designs. This most philosophy profs to
teach it as if it is a science, which it is not. If one viewed the ramblings
of philosophers as more akin to the musings of the great poets presumably
there could be greater appreciation all around.

Still, there must be selectivity of some sort. With PG, I also wouldn't advise
anyone to read through the collected works of Berkeley. Russell's history
unfortunately also isn't great, although, IMHO, it is worth reading.

------
brlewis
If philosophy is to "enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the
dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation," how do you
explain George W. Bush's relatively high marks for Philosophy 15b?

<http://2004.georgewbush.org/bios/yale-transcript.asp>

