

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion - srirams444
http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

======
lutusp
A quote: "The problem with 'I'm entitled to my opinion' is that, all too
often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned."

Not in philosophy, where beliefs are the coin of the realm and anything goes.
This philosophy lecturer, apparently disappointed by his chosen field, is
trying to turn it into science. I have news for him -- science is already
being taught in science classrooms.

Is it true that anything goes in philosophy? To answer, I would ask where
deconstructive postmodernism was born (answer: among philosophers). Then one
may ask about deconstructive postmodernism (essentially the idea that there
are no shared objective truths and everything is a matter of opinion), what's
wrong with it? Only that it's self-canceling -- the philosophical claim that
there are no shared, objective truths must first be applied to that claim,
thus nullifying it.

~~~
anigbrowl
Well, I think you're asking a bit much from a short editorial piece. It does
remind me, though, of my 2nd favorite _Onion_ headline:
[http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-38-percent-of-
people-...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-38-percent-of-people-not-
actually-entitled-t,5701/)

~~~
lutusp
> Well, I think you're asking a bit much from a short editorial piece.

Perhaps. I just think it's funny seeing a philosopher trying to apply
scientific standards of evidence in his classroom.

> It does remind me, though, of my 2nd favorite Onion headline:
> [http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-38-percent-of-
> people-...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-38-percent-of-people-not-
> actually-entitled-t,5701/)

Yep, that's pretty funny all right, especially the "behavioral science"
oxymoron. :)

~~~
oblique63
Wow. What's with the intense elitism here? Have you taken a philosophy course
before?

The article was clearly arguing in favor of the general public learning to
think critically. I'm not sure what your agenda is for completely dismissing
that, but it seems you're harboring some misconceptions about philosophy. I
mean, where do you think the concepts of logical fallacies and the scientific
method were born? I highly recommend you read the works of Karl Popper (the
father of the idea that scientific theories have to be falsifiable) if you
really want to learn about the importance of philosophy in the sciences. Not
to mention the equal importance of social sciences (that Popper himself
defends), albeit their limited ability to define scientific _theories_ (as
Popper defined them).

Bacon and Kant might be useful prerequisite reading as well if you really care
to understand the context and importance of these epistemological advances.
But to dismiss the entire field with snark (like it is so commonly done on HN)
is just in bad taste and exhibits exactly the lack in critical thinking that
this article was taking about.

~~~
lutusp
> What's with the intense elitism here? Have you taken a philosophy course
> before?

First response: Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy
courses are qualified to criticize the field? If so, will the real elitist
please stand up?

Second response: To serve on a jury in a murder trial, do I have to be a
murderer? No, I only need to be able to evaluate evidence. It's the same here.
I find it amazing that you were unable to anticipate this obvious reply, given
your attachment to philosophy and the critical-thinking skills it imparts.

> The article was clearly arguing in favor of the general public learning to
> think critically.

But that's not philosophy's goal, that's science's goal. It was philosophy's
goal until about 1800 (when scientists were known as "natural philosophers"),
but since then a historic split has separated those who favor argument from
those who favor evidence.

> But to dismiss the entire field with snark (like it is so commonly done on
> HN) is just in bad taste and exhibits exactly the lack in critical thinking
> that this article was taking about.

It is critical thinking, aptly applied, that correctly identifies philosophy
as a field predisposed to resolve issues with rhetoric rather than evidence.
Were this not the case, if philosophy really were the paragon of critical-
thinking virtue you claim, it wouldn't exist separate from science, because
science already does that.

~~~
aschampion
Science has nothing to do with critical thinking, science is entirely
concerned with predicting and explaining observable phenomena. Why and how
prediction and explanation of phenomena constitute good critical thinking is
epistemology, a philosophical concern. Evidence abounds in modern philosophy,
although what counts as evidence and how evidence should operate in arguments
is an open question -- which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy
over naive empiricism.

Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship
with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published literature
by contemporary philosophers.

~~~
lutusp
> Science has nothing to do with critical thinking ...

And I should take a philosophy course to be qualified to comment on
philosophy? Science has _everything_ to do with critical thinking. Without the
scientific tradition of critical thinking, Bigfoot and the Loch News monster
must exist on the ground they haven't been proven not to exist.

> ... science is entirely concerned with predicting and explaining observable
> phenomena.

You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively
shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step
without which _it 's not science_.

> ... which is why philosophical arguments still hold primacy over naive
> empiricism.

The only reason philosophers (and others) live beyond the age of 40 is the
naive empiricism we see all around us. As to philosophical arguments holding
primacy over others, this hasn't been true for over 100 years, since the day
when science combined critical thinking with reality-testing.

Philosophers don't reality-test, and they don't have a reliable basis for
falsifying theories. The proof is that deconstructive post-modernism is alive
and well among philosophers, even though it is a self-canceling notion that
produces laughter among scientists and other critical thinkers.

Q: "What is deconstructive post-modernism?"

A: "Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and
that everything is a matter of opinion."

Q: "But shouldn't that idea logically be applied to post-modernism itself,
thus nullifying it?"

A: "Can you run that by me again? I'm a philosopher, the idea of self-
reference is out of my depth."

> Whatever "philosophy" as you are using it is, it has no clear relationship
> with philosophy as one would expect it to be used, i.e., published
> literature by contemporary philosophers.

The problem is not that I don't know what philosophers think about, the
problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely
typical example.

~~~
oblique63
> _The problem is not that I don 't know what philosophers think about, the
> problem is that I do -- see deconstructive postmodernism as one entirely
> typical example._

It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with, because
what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one school of
thought and applying it to an entire field. A good critical thinking
philosopher would not do that, or at least be so sure of himself while doing
it.

> _" Simply put, it's the idea that there are no shared, objective truths and
> that everything is a matter of opinion."_

This is beyond out-dated as a useful school of thought. Again, If you read
Kant and Popper, they outlined why thinking along those lines is impractical
and unproductive, which clearly you seem to agree with.

> _You left out the part where scientists use gathered evidence to inductively
> shape and then test falsifiable theories about the evidence, a critical step
> without which it 's not science._

This is true, however like I said, sir Karl Popper was the one that entirely
defined this notion of falsifiability you're talking about. Furthermore,
something can still be 'scientific' if it follows the traditional scientific
method, but a proper scientific _theory_ cannot be formed without valid
falsifiability.

And to go back to your previous response:

> _Is it your position that only those who have taken philosophy courses are
> qualified to criticize the field?_

No, but it would be much more productive for society if people were more open
to understanding the fields they hold strong opinions about before resorting
to make misguided generalizations about them. This applies just as much to
attacking philosophy the way you are, as it does to people who argue against
vaccination/GMOs/whatever; anti-intellectualism is anti-intellectualism.
Arguing as if from a stance of higher intellectual ground while making straw-
man arguments everywhere is not a very fruitful argumentation technique.

Like I mentioned above, it seems you actually largely _agree_ with a large
important branch of philosophy here, yet you don't seem to be aware of it and
are dismissing the entire field. 'Thinking Critically' has been thoroughly
thought out by many philosophers throughout history, and _that_ is what led to
both Science and Mathematics; Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin
of literature, it's _entire purpose_ was to formalize thought with the aims of
eliminating the illogical.

So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are
saying is misinformed, please do read Popper at the very least his 'On the
Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance' and 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery'
papers, because his thoughts are still prevalent in modern science and I think
you will largely agree with them.

~~~
lutusp
> It seems that is the only branch of philosophy you are familiar with,
> because what you are doing is generalizing your misinformed notions of one
> school of thought and applying it to an entire field.

You really need to learn how to shape an argument -- your premise is false and
your conclusion depends on your premise. Deconstructive postmodernism is an
idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts the
entire field's critical thinking ability. Now read carefully:

Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science's respect for
critical thinking.

If even a few scientists accepted astrology in a formal sense, it would indict
science training.

Because more than a few philosophers detect no contradiction in deconstructive
postmodernism, this indicts philosophical training and its respect for
critical thinking. Which was my point.

> So again, if you actually are interested in understanding why what you are
> saying is misinformed ...

You skipped the part where you offered any evidence to support this
conclusion. On the other hand, you're a philosopher, so my expectations aren't
dashed.

> Philosophy wasn't just some fanciful step-cousin of literature, it's [sic]
> entire purpose was to formalize thought with the aims of eliminating the
> illogical.

First, you want "its" here, not "it's".

Second, that presumably explains why lit-crit is a laughingstock. Read more
at:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

In the above now-famous episode in contemporary philosophy, a scientist wrote
a deliberate hoax philosophy article which was eagerly accepted and published.
The author then revealed what he did and why.

The overarching problem is a lack of reality-testing in philosophical fields,
and a less than rigorous respect for logical argument, defects not shared by
science.

~~~
oblique63
> _your premise is false and your conclusion depends on your premise._

Ok, so your knowledge of these terms indicates that at least you've taken an
introductory course on philosophy at some point, so that's good. However the
key point in my argument is " _seems_ ", because it would be silly to think
that I know anything about what you're knowledgeable about.

> _...an idea that has received much support among philosophers, which indicts
> the entire field 's critical thinking ability._

And there's where your argument falls apart. How does your _conclusion_ follow
from your _premise_? Greek mythology is still very much a full field of its
own, but I doubt it has any active believers remaining in this day and age;
that doesn't make it any less of a belief system. Similarly, I could argue
that all modern music listeners are teen girls because Justin Bieber's fan
base is mostly teen girls. It just doesn't follow, regardless of how you feel
about one aspect of a field.

> _Scientists reject astrology out of hand, which supports science 's respect
> for critical thinking._

Yep, but they didn't always used to. Astronomy _originated from_ Astrology,
and provided it with many valid theories that Astronomy then took as its own.
Astrology now is mostly classified by its silly belief system, but that's the
nature of intellectual evolution. Popper's essay "On the Sources of Knowledge"
that I mentioned deals explicitly with Astrology/Astronomy, and Classical
Mechanics/Relativity as its prime examples. It's a good short read, you should
seek it out.

Either way, I'm not sure why you keep going off on tangents with regards to
spelling or literature and such, but an important part of constructing good
arguments is the avoidance of logical fallacies. A good reference of them can
be found here:
[https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/](https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/) I hope
from my tone that you can tell that I am merely trying to help build your
understanding of the field, because your claim of lack-or-rigor in philosophy
is easily disproved by even a quick glance at history. Mathematical proofs are
some of the most rigorous formal 'theories' we have, and they originated with
philosophy. Similarly, 'falsifiability' as a concept was _invented_ in
philosophy. It is the dismissal of this that is discerning. Otherwise, it
seems we generally agree, and that you're misplacing your arguments against
the wrong foe. A friendly understanding of this would be nice, but I don't
gather from your tone that that is what you are after...

