A remarkably good interview. But I have a quibble. You summed up with:
These tree-falling-in-a-forest arguments are a huge distraction from talking about how the world actually works.
I would maintain that philosophers have no business deluding themselves that they can usefully discuss how the world actually works. Leave that discussion to scientists. Philosophers do their best work generating models and viewpoints about how the world works, not facts about how the world works. They create fictions (though useful fictions). And in doing so, they need to pay some attention to exactly what words they use.
I will agree, though, that they waste time if they actually begin disputing what words ought to mean.
Like most naturalist philosophers, I don’t see a sharp line between what philosophers and scientists should be doing. Philosophers are basically just the most theoretical kind of scientists. And when philosophers start using methods that aren’t condoned by math or science, they tend toward crank-ness.
There is a difference between concept analysis—which ideally ends with words having a useful meaning—and a different, less productive kind of analysis which ideally ends up with words in a discussion having the same meaning that they have outside the discussion.
Philosophers are indeed uniquely trained to conduct the first kind of analysis.
A remarkably good interview. But I have a quibble. You summed up with:
I would maintain that philosophers have no business deluding themselves that they can usefully discuss how the world actually works. Leave that discussion to scientists. Philosophers do their best work generating models and viewpoints about how the world works, not facts about how the world works. They create fictions (though useful fictions). And in doing so, they need to pay some attention to exactly what words they use.
I will agree, though, that they waste time if they actually begin disputing what words ought to mean.
Like most naturalist philosophers, I don’t see a sharp line between what philosophers and scientists should be doing. Philosophers are basically just the most theoretical kind of scientists. And when philosophers start using methods that aren’t condoned by math or science, they tend toward crank-ness.
I don’t get it. You don’t think philosophers should dispute what words ought to mean?
Isn’t sorting out terminology one of the more important jobs of the philosophy of science?
If not philosophers, who do you think should be doing that work?
There is a difference between concept analysis—which ideally ends with words having a useful meaning—and a different, less productive kind of analysis which ideally ends up with words in a discussion having the same meaning that they have outside the discussion.
Philosophers are indeed uniquely trained to conduct the first kind of analysis.