I’ve also been presenting them with contrarian opinions and asking them to evaluate them, and I have a higher opinion of them if they avoid just icking away from the subject.
You have a higher opinion of people who make socially foolish decisions?
I bestow a higher likelihood of long-term closeness on persons who “avoid just icking away from the subject.”
Oh, I apologize. I entirely misread what you were doing, I think.
I sorta think you can’t possibly disagree with this, or you wouldn’t be here.
Um… kind of? I guess it depends on what sort of contrarian opinions you were sharing and what sort of setting you were doing it in.
The latter part assumed you were mainly replying to the second question I asked. I apologize for the bluntness of those questions, also. However, I would like to clarify my first question slightly.
When I see the phrase “skill at philosophy” it makes me think of professional philosophers. You probably are not trying to test for the kinds of skills which are found in professional philosophers, because most of these skills cannot be tested through informal questioning. I now realize that you were trying to test for, I think, the ability to think logically about philosophical topics and openness to unpopular ideas. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
On the other hand, I suspect that it is possible to rank people according to their skill at philosophy, and come up with an ordering that’s reasonably widely agreed, as long as the points are not too close. Just for fun, here’s a few to rank...
Beyond the obvious signaling opportunity of saying that creationists are the worst people ever, I’m not having an easy time figuring out which way the ranking should go between a celebrity who appears to be totally apathetic towards philosophy and a creationist apologist who is enthusiastically doing very bad philosophy.
I also wonder how much agreement there would be if we tried to establish the ranking between Richard Dawkins and Jerry Fodor.
What in the world is “skill at philosophy”?
You have a higher opinion of people who make socially foolish decisions?
.
Oh, I apologize. I entirely misread what you were doing, I think.
Um… kind of? I guess it depends on what sort of contrarian opinions you were sharing and what sort of setting you were doing it in.
The latter part assumed you were mainly replying to the second question I asked. I apologize for the bluntness of those questions, also. However, I would like to clarify my first question slightly.
When I see the phrase “skill at philosophy” it makes me think of professional philosophers. You probably are not trying to test for the kinds of skills which are found in professional philosophers, because most of these skills cannot be tested through informal questioning. I now realize that you were trying to test for, I think, the ability to think logically about philosophical topics and openness to unpopular ideas. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
On the other hand, I suspect that it is possible to rank people according to their skill at philosophy, and come up with an ordering that’s reasonably widely agreed, as long as the points are not too close. Just for fun, here’s a few to rank...
Duane Gish
Eliezer Yudkowsky
Kanzi
Bill Clinton
Beyonce Knowles
So I guess there is such a thing.
Beyond the obvious signaling opportunity of saying that creationists are the worst people ever, I’m not having an easy time figuring out which way the ranking should go between a celebrity who appears to be totally apathetic towards philosophy and a creationist apologist who is enthusiastically doing very bad philosophy.
I also wonder how much agreement there would be if we tried to establish the ranking between Richard Dawkins and Jerry Fodor.
I do not really agree with Fodor on most issues, but Jerry Fodor(2010) is very different from Jerry Fodor(1978).