Another example of schools proliferating without evidence: philosophy. Consider all the different schools of ethics which have sprung up: there’s utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics, with vast numbers of sub categorizations under each school.
Philosophers are more susceptible to this failure mode because on many important philosophical questions, a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence. Modal logicians trying to do metaphysics, for example.
Consider all the different schools of ethics which have sprung up
A few thousand years, and we’ve managed to come up with about three possible answers to the question ‘what, in general, does one have most reason to do or want?’. Is your complaint that this is too many to have considered, or that the question isn’t completely settled yet?
a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence
I know many philosophers who would be surprised by this assertion—I was under the impression the Empiricists pretty much won. In Ethics, particularly, moral observation is now a standard piece of the toolkit.
Of course, the grain of truth here is that due to the fractured nature of philosophical schools, there are large communities of philosophers who don’t realize other large communities of philosophers even exist. In a sense, nobody knows what philosophy doesn’t know, even philosophers.
Is your complaint that this is too many to have considered, or that the question isn’t completely settled yet?
My complaint is that little progress has been made over many years. There are three general ways to answer the question, sure. But each general answer is really an umbrella term covering a large number of answers. Some sects are similar to others, but they are still different sects.
I know many philosophers who would be surprised by this assertion—I was under the impression the Empiricists pretty much won. In Ethics, particularly, moral observation is now a standard piece of the toolkit.
In retrospect, my experience is probably colored by the small school I go to. From what I can tell, there are still rather large, if minority, groups of philosophers who disagree with the settled answer on many questions.
“Philosophers are more susceptible to this failure mode because on many important philosophical questions, a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence.”
No, philosophers are more susceptible because most of them can’t recognize that “cannot be answered by evidence” means an answer can’t be obtained at all.
To such individuals, reason is merely a passing fad coequal with every other way of asserting something, a fleeting hiccup that they’re far too fashionable to consider important.
No, philosophers are more susceptible because most of them can’t recognize that “cannot be answered by evidence” means an answer can’t be obtained at all.
I would say both. Some things that philosophers think can’t be answered by evidence are in fact answered by evidence, such as whether 2 + 2 = 4.
Another example of schools proliferating without evidence: philosophy. Consider all the different schools of ethics which have sprung up: there’s utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and virtue ethics, with vast numbers of sub categorizations under each school.
Philosophers are more susceptible to this failure mode because on many important philosophical questions, a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence. Modal logicians trying to do metaphysics, for example.
A few thousand years, and we’ve managed to come up with about three possible answers to the question ‘what, in general, does one have most reason to do or want?’. Is your complaint that this is too many to have considered, or that the question isn’t completely settled yet?
I know many philosophers who would be surprised by this assertion—I was under the impression the Empiricists pretty much won. In Ethics, particularly, moral observation is now a standard piece of the toolkit.
Of course, the grain of truth here is that due to the fractured nature of philosophical schools, there are large communities of philosophers who don’t realize other large communities of philosophers even exist. In a sense, nobody knows what philosophy doesn’t know, even philosophers.
My complaint is that little progress has been made over many years. There are three general ways to answer the question, sure. But each general answer is really an umbrella term covering a large number of answers. Some sects are similar to others, but they are still different sects.
In retrospect, my experience is probably colored by the small school I go to. From what I can tell, there are still rather large, if minority, groups of philosophers who disagree with the settled answer on many questions.
My obligatory Edwin Jaynes quote on philosophers, quoting a colleague
Probability Theory http://books.google.com/books?id=tTN4HuUNXjgC&pg=PA144
Is any of that avoidable?
Yes.
Please provide proof. Please don’t point, yet again, to the highly debatable “solution” to FW.
What kind of proof would you accept?
“Philosophers are more susceptible to this failure mode because on many important philosophical questions, a standard if not unanimous approach is argue that the question cannot be answered by evidence.”
No, philosophers are more susceptible because most of them can’t recognize that “cannot be answered by evidence” means an answer can’t be obtained at all.
To such individuals, reason is merely a passing fad coequal with every other way of asserting something, a fleeting hiccup that they’re far too fashionable to consider important.
I would say both. Some things that philosophers think can’t be answered by evidence are in fact answered by evidence, such as whether 2 + 2 = 4.