OK, I cannot bring myself to add philosophy to the list of “don’t argue with the experts, learn from them” topics, but maybe it’s because I don’t know anything about philosophy.
I find that an odd statement. Why can’t you assume by default that arguing with an expert in X is bad for all X?
For some reason, theoritis is much worse with regard to philosophy than just about anything else. Amateurs hardly ever argue with brain surgeons or particle physicists. I think part of the reason for that is that brain surgeons and particle physicists have manifest practical skills that others don’t have. The “skill” of philosophy consists of stating opinions and defending them, which everyone can do to some extent. The amateurs are like people who think you can write (well, at a a professional level) because you can type.
I find that an odd statement. Why can’t you assume by default that arguing with an expert in X is bad for all X?
By default, yes. Let me try to articulate my perception of the difference between philosophers and other experts. When I talk to a mathematician, or a physicist, or a computer scientist, I can almost immediately see that their level in their discipline is way above mine, because they bring up a standard argument/calculation/proof which refutes my home-made ideas, and then extend those ideas to a direction I never considered and show which of them are any good. Talking to an expert willing to take you seriously is generally a humbling experience. You see the depth of their knowledge and realize that arguing with them instead of listening is a poor strategy. By the way, I noticed that I sometimes also do that to people when I talk about my area of expertise.
Now, when I listen to a mainstream philosophical argument, I don’t feel humbled at all (with one or two exceptions), instead I want to scream “why are you arguing about definitions? Especially the definitions you didn’t even bother formalizing?!?!” or “why do you rely on a premise you find “intuitive” or “obvious”, given that it’s rather not obvious to others?” or “why do you gleefully strawman someone else’s argument instead of trying to salvage it?”. The exceptions are generally in the areas which can hardly be considered philosophy, they are usually a part of mathematical logic, or computer science, or physics, or psychology, which makes them (gasp!) testable, something classical philosophers seem to shy away from. I don’t normally get the feeling of awe and respect when listening to a philosopher. They can sure cite a multitude of sources and positions and reproduce some ancient arguments, but many of these arguments look as outdated as Aristotle’s ideas about physics, and so only of historical interest.
Again, I’m no expert in the matters of philosophy, so my perspective might be completely wrong, but that’s the explanation why I did not add philosophers to the list of experts in my original comment.
Now, when I listen to a mainstream philosophical argument, I don’t feel humbled at all (with one or two exceptions), instead I want to scream “why are you arguing about definitions?
Becuase phils. deal with abstract concepts, not things you can point at, and because many phil. problems are caused by inconsistent definitions, as in the when-a-tree falls problem.
Especially the definitions you didn’t even bother formalizing?!?!”
Phils can and do stipulate.
or “why do you rely on a premise you find “intuitive” or “obvious”, given that it’s rather not obvious to others?”
Are there fields where people don’t rely on intuitions?
or “why do you gleefully strawman someone else’s argument instead of trying to salvage it?”.
I find that an odd statement. Why can’t you assume by default that arguing with an expert in X is bad for all X?
For some reason, theoritis is much worse with regard to philosophy than just about anything else. Amateurs hardly ever argue with brain surgeons or particle physicists. I think part of the reason for that is that brain surgeons and particle physicists have manifest practical skills that others don’t have. The “skill” of philosophy consists of stating opinions and defending them, which everyone can do to some extent. The amateurs are like people who think you can write (well, at a a professional level) because you can type.
By default, yes. Let me try to articulate my perception of the difference between philosophers and other experts. When I talk to a mathematician, or a physicist, or a computer scientist, I can almost immediately see that their level in their discipline is way above mine, because they bring up a standard argument/calculation/proof which refutes my home-made ideas, and then extend those ideas to a direction I never considered and show which of them are any good. Talking to an expert willing to take you seriously is generally a humbling experience. You see the depth of their knowledge and realize that arguing with them instead of listening is a poor strategy. By the way, I noticed that I sometimes also do that to people when I talk about my area of expertise.
Now, when I listen to a mainstream philosophical argument, I don’t feel humbled at all (with one or two exceptions), instead I want to scream “why are you arguing about definitions? Especially the definitions you didn’t even bother formalizing?!?!” or “why do you rely on a premise you find “intuitive” or “obvious”, given that it’s rather not obvious to others?” or “why do you gleefully strawman someone else’s argument instead of trying to salvage it?”. The exceptions are generally in the areas which can hardly be considered philosophy, they are usually a part of mathematical logic, or computer science, or physics, or psychology, which makes them (gasp!) testable, something classical philosophers seem to shy away from. I don’t normally get the feeling of awe and respect when listening to a philosopher. They can sure cite a multitude of sources and positions and reproduce some ancient arguments, but many of these arguments look as outdated as Aristotle’s ideas about physics, and so only of historical interest.
Again, I’m no expert in the matters of philosophy, so my perspective might be completely wrong, but that’s the explanation why I did not add philosophers to the list of experts in my original comment.
Becuase phils. deal with abstract concepts, not things you can point at, and because many phil. problems are caused by inconsistent definitions, as in the when-a-tree falls problem.
Phils can and do stipulate.
Are there fields where people don’t rely on intuitions?
Maybe they can’t see how.