
Philosophy tool kit - miobrien
https://aeon.co/essays/with-the-use-of-heuristics-anybody-can-think-like-a-philosopher
======
jessriedel
Here's Hayek's formal paper on a lot of these ideas:

[http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Philosophical...](http://philrsss.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/Philosophical%20Heuristics%20and%20Creativity.final-2.pdf)

Nick Beckstead once told me informally that new philosophical ideas can
usually be classified as one of these: arguments (in the sense of formal
logic, with premises and conclusions), examples (e.g., intuition pumps), and
distinctions (e.g., normative vs. positive statements).

~~~
justin66
> Here's Hayek's formal paper on a lot of these ideas

Hájek, not Hayek. Not trying to be pedantic, only reassuring people that The
Austrians are not threadcrapping.

~~~
jessriedel
Whoops, thanks. Note though that these are just Czech variants of the same
name.

------
ajarmst
There's something delightfully twenty-first century about a project to replace
Western Philosophy with a dozen or so definitions, shortcut heuristics and
simplistic approximations.

~~~
Tloewald
"These five heuristics might help you prove the existence of God!"

~~~
drdeca
I am reminded of
[https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod](https://github.com/FormalTheology/GoedelGod)

------
ehudla
Two book recommendations:

Short, with a lot of punch: Philosophical Devices: Proofs, Probabilities,
Possibilities, and Sets.

[https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Devices-Proofs-
Probabil...](https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Devices-Proofs-
Probabilities-Possibilities/dp/0199651736/)

A much more detailed and introductory book: The philosopher's toolkit : a
compendium of philosophical concepts and methods.

[https://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-Toolkit-Compendium-
Philo...](https://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-Toolkit-Compendium-
Philosophical-Concepts/dp/1405190183/)

------
jawns
Whenever I read or hear a philosophy professor teaching about fallacies, I
always look at their examples.

And whenever their examples all spring from a consistent worldview (e.g. they
all debunk liberal ideas or conservative ideas or religious ideas or anti-
religious ideas), it raises my eyebrows, because it makes me suspect that
they're more interested in defending their worldview than they are in teaching
logic.

But when someone presents example arguments that are inconsistent with one
another, perhaps debunking an anti-religious argument first, then debunking a
religious argument, then I know that they're primarily concerned with
teaching, rather than indoctrinating.

I won't say which camp I think Prof. Hájek falls into with this Aeon piece,
but let's just consider this suspicion of consistent-worldview examples
another tool in the philosopher's toolkit of critical thinking.

~~~
trendroid
>I won't say which camp I think Prof. Hájek falls into with this Aeon piece

The way you put it in this comment, it may feel to some that you are
suggesting the author is trying to indoctrinate. I highly recommend people to
read the article itself to find that out. It's doing no such thing in my
opinion and makes sure to not sound like having an agenda. The author may
simply choose some examples that happen to increase reader's interest and
hence make them finish the article and understand the concept better.

He ends with this which is not how you indoctrinate someone:

"Where does this leave us? Well, we did not manage to prove the existence of
God, nor prove his non-existence. (I hope you are not too disappointed!) But
that’s par for the course in philosophy – it rarely proves anything
conclusively. Instead, I hope I have given you some sense of what
philosophical reasoning is like, and how that reasoning can be stimulated and
enhanced by the use of various heuristics. Along the way, we saw some
instances of what followed from what (or not), exposed some sophisms, spotted
some fallacies, and policed some of our reasoning."

The fact is that our brains have been so incessantly bombarded with propaganda
from different places that we start noticing it even when none exists. In
other words, Apophenia.

~~~
nercht12
>> The fact is that our brains have been so incessantly bombarded with
propaganda from different places that we start noticing it even when none
exists. In other words, Apophenia.

An interesting point. I would say that everyone _does_ have something they
want you to believe - even if it's just pure skepticism - That's the point of
teaching, after all (or you just find it fun to talk). We are trying to share
what we believe is true, even if that belief is that we can't definitively say
anything is true. I used to think such a stance as equality for both ends was
being open-minded, but to some people (especially those with a firm opinion,
be it wrong or right), I came across as promoting what they considered
horribly wrong. They think that alot of (um, all of their) ideas are provable,
definitive truth, so arguing against that point is - at least to them -
"indoctrination" of a different kind.

Funny how that all works out, no?

------
tyre
This is perfectly targeted to today's readership and, simultaneously, not at
all about the core of philosophy.

These tips are generally about logic. Logic is necessary but not sufficient to
derive truth from the world. Philosophy is the search for _knowledge_ , which
is much broader and deeper than logic.

Meaning, purpose, ethics, knowledge, and truth (to name a few) can't be picked
apart or pieced together with proofs and syllogisms.

~~~
randcraw
I'd say philosophy is the search for ideas and models of thought, not whether
they're true (knowledge) but only whether they're plausible and consistent.
Philosophers also search for "toolkits" \-- methods and relations (logic) that
enable manipulation of "thought atoms" in ways that minimize loss of signal or
introduce contradiction.

Knowledge is the purview of science, since scientists have to judge each of
their models against only one possible universe. Philosophers are not so
constrained, thus their notion of truth is relative. Like Derrida's, for
example.

~~~
tyre
Oh no, this is a very dangerous mis-interpretation of philosophy.

The word itself can be literally translated to "love of knowledge": "philos"
(love, from the same root as "phile", as in "francophile" or "anglophile") +
"sophos" (wisdom or knowledge.)

Science is one subsection of philosophy, but certainly does not have a
monopoly on knowledge. We "know" quantum mechanics (because it works for small
things) and we "know" general relativity (because it works for big things) and
yet they cannot coexist as we understand them today.

On the other hand, how do we know that human life has value? Certainly not
through science. There is no axiom or mathematical proof that says, "a human
life has value." And yet it is pretty absurd to think of progress or knowledge
independent of human value. What's the value of science if not its positive
effect on humanity?

Truth, in the philosophical sense, makes no sense unless it relates back to
reality in this universe. Relativist truth is, in my opinion, a necessary
thought experiment but breaks down in the real world; therefore it is not true
in the true sense of the word. "Cogito ergo sum" is not relativist in any
sense—there is no other side to thought requiring existence.

~~~
jhbadger
Although since the toolkit is about fallacies, it is worth noting that
assuming the origin of a term has anything to do with its present meaning is
an example of the "genetic fallacy".

The literal meaning of philosophy isn't really what is meant today. It's
similar to the situation of the mathematician G.H. Hardy who complained that
the word "intellectual" no longer meant all people involved in intellectual
pursuits (including mathematicians and scientists), but a particular type of
thinker -- namely one interested in politics or the arts.

------
nemo1618
>It seems we should grant [that "Our world is not the best of all possible
worlds"], since we can easily imagine our world being better – more happy
people, less suffering.

Only if you define "better" in those terms. I'm sure that Romeo and Juliet
would have preferred a world in which they remained alive as lovers -- but
would that be a better story?

~~~
adbachman
The counterargument to "this is not the best of all possible worlds" from the
perspectives of the people experiencing it (the world) would be to show that
every single person experiencing suffering believes it to be "best." That
there is no better outcome than that they suffer.

This seems unlikely to be true.

~~~
nemo1618
>the perspectives of the people experiencing it (the world)

Well, a lot of things rest on that equivocation. Personally I consider the
world to be more than just the sum of the experiences of individuals. To me,
it is more like a story in which everyone plays a part.

------
ranko
It strikes me that a good philosopher would make a very good software tester.
Maybe this article could be adapted as "with-the use of heuristics anybody can
think like a tester".

~~~
nercht12
It should not be surprising then that many software engineers are interested
in philosophy. :) The personality type of many programmers and philosophers is
INTP, which tends to be geared towards these sorts of things.

