As a philosophy student with a great interest in math and computing, I can definitely attest to the lack of scientific understanding in my department. Worse, it often seems like some professors actively encourage an anti-scientific ideology. I’m wondering if anybody has any practical ideas on how to converse with students and professors [who are not supportive or knowledgeable of the rationalist and Bayesian world-view] in a positive and engaging way.
JMiller
[suggestion] New Meetup Tab
Best Explainers on Different Subjects
Thanks, I didn’t know those existed. Appreciate it.
Confusion about Normative Morality
I’m pretty new here. If you down vote me, I’d love if you could explain to me why, so I do not repeat some error. I appreciate both actions sincerely.
I am having difficulty understanding the model of ‘physics+logic = reality.’ Up until now I have understood that’s physics was reality, but logic is the way to describe and think about what follows from it. Would someone please post a link to the original article (in this sequence or not) which explains the position? Thank you.
Luke, the link in the third line “Now is your chance to double your impact while helping us raise up to $230,000 to help fund our research program” does not work.
Rewiring my Brain: (gentle) Help Appreciated
Thanks! That’s a very good exercise to try.
In my intermediate level course, we barely talk about history at all. It is supposed to focus on “developments” in the last thirty years or so. The problem I have is that most profs think that philosophy is able to go about figuring out the truth without things like empirism, scientific study, neuroscience, probability and decision theory. Everything is very “intuitive” and I find that difficult to grasp.
For example, when discussing deontolgy, I asked why there should be absolute “requirements” as an argument against consequentialism, seeing that if it’s true that the best consequences would be take these requiremesnts into consequentialist accounts of outcomes, then that is what a conequentialist would (should) say as well! The professor’s answer and that of many students was: “That’s just the way it is. Some things ought not be done, only because they must ought not be done”. That is a hard pill for me to swallow. In this case I am much more comfortable with Eliezer’s Ethical Injunctions.
(The prof was not necessarily promoting dentology but was arguing on it’s behalf.)
Right, which explains his position: math is real and 2+3 really is 5, but he does not know what that means, or where that is true.
You are right though, it isn’t a fully fleshed out account. All I said is that it explains his position clearly, not that his position itself is perfectly clear.
I appreciate the initiative to send meta-sources rather than single pieces.
Thanks Gunnar. Luke may not have linked his thread, because I did so in the OP.
I am very excited about this. Ever since I was young I have had trouble with being aware of my surroundings. I have been improving slowly but I have found little good advice / guidance. I look forward to reading what you think about the subject.
I suppose it is not simply coincidence that I am reading it right now. Thanks for the suggestion!
I don’t have time to read this this week, but when I do I will get back to you. Thanks for the article.
A Probability Question
Hi, I am taking a course in Existentialism. It is required for my degree. The primary authors are Sartre, de Bouvoir and Merleau-Ponty. I am wondering if anyone has taken a similar course, and how they prevented material from driving them insane (I have been warned this may happen). Is there any way to frame the material to make sense to a naturalist/ reductionist?
Eliezer, I just want to say thanks. This conversational method of teaching logic/math is very approachable and engaging to me. Much appreciated!