Mentioning Phil phD's

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Agathon, Turing was a mathematician who late in his life pondered philosophical questions. Not a particularly good example on your part, is it?

Do you have any examples of actual philosophers who contributed to society without leaning on stuff they actually did prior to switching fields?

If you had read what I said more carefully you would see that I claimed that philosophers who study AI are interested in the Turing test, just as they are interested in computational models of the mind. I didn't claim Turing was a philosopher. Here's what I said:

I assume you have heard of the Turing Test and other such things. Philosophers are interested in these.

I don't see how claiming that some philosophers are interested in the Turing test entails that Turing was a philosopher, although some of his work is of interest to philosophers. In fact he is a strange and interesting fellow in his own right.

The same is the case with Chomsky, who is technically a linguistics professor, but who also holds the interest of some in the philosophy of mind.

You can discover this yourself if you read some of the books on AI that are written by people who work in both philosophy and computer science. Don't listen to Asher's illiterate ravings - by his own admission and the state of his posts he doesn't know anything about the current state of analytical philosophy. He's just trolling because he got burned by the facts on his silly "Republic of Alberta" thread and is trying, pathetically, to get some payback.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
How can you criticise philosophy as it is conducted in universities when you have on this thread continually shown yourself ignorant of what is actually done by professional philosophers and have posted numerous howlers on the topic?

Instead of calling me ignorant on it, why don't you inform me.

You've done nothing but give away general bull**** contributions philosophers have made ("multiculturalism") or have made laughable references to real scientific breakthroughs that have little or nothing to do with philosophers (Turing machine, atomic theory).

A few people now, added to myself, who have actually done more than kiddies' formal logic, have explained to you some of what philosophy does, but you have chosen to ignore their statements in favour of posting fatuous pseudo-objections because that is all you seem capable of.

All of what people in here have explained have either avoided the question (cite ancient philosophers) or given general bull**** that they pulled from their ass (we can't measure the contribution of today's philosophers yet, philosophers can invent new political structures which better people's lives...)

It is all very well to have a "right-wing-lets-turn-universities-into-polytechnics" attitude

I don't believe in turning the universities into technical schools, I merely think PUBLIC universities should do research that will benefit the PUBLIC, since they are using the PUBLIC's money to do it. It's not that outrageous of a concept.

Your comments about Shakespeare are risible. What it shows is that you are one of the stupid tasteless people

Because I don't like Shakespeare I'm stupid and tasteless?

You're the philosopher, right? The one whose forte is debate and argument? This is precisely why I think it's useless, you're a PhD student in it and you've shown a very pathetic form on here.

Oh well, back on the "ignore" list for you.

Which philosophy does this fall under? Reminds me of the philosophy of a five year old, really.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If you had read what I said more carefully you would see that I claimed that philosophers who study AI are interested in the Turing test, just as they are interested in computational models of the mind. I didn't claim Turing was a philosopher.

How are philosophers "interested" in the Turing Test. Seriously, I would like some details on this. The Turing Test and the Turing Machine are something I'm very familiar with, so I'd like to know what these great Philosopher minds are doing with it.

The same is the case with Chomsky, who is technically a linguistics professor, but who also holds the interest of some in the philosophy of mind.

He's also made a contribution to the field of computer science...

Don't listen to Asher's illiterate ravings

CyberGnu is a PhD, I'm sure he couldn't care less about my rantings. Surely you don't believe I'm the only one who knows what philosophy is a laughable discipline in today's universities.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, I'm sorry -- these people are modern philosophers?

1500+ isn't considered 'modern' to you? Hell, Marx wrote in the 1850s. That sure isn't ancient. What do you consider modern and why?

For someone closer in time, I think Wittgenstein and his effect on linguistics was stated before.

today's philosophers who are paid off taxpayer's dollars aren't contributing back to the community

Do artists contribute to the community? Writers? Movie directors? How do you determine 'contribution' to society if you take culture out of the entire equation?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
1500+ isn't considered 'modern' to you?

Certainly not. Hell, even the 70s are pretty old.
Remember what field I'm in, Imran.

What I mean by modern, is perhaps by the last 50 years or so, at the latest.

Hell, Marx wrote in the 1850s.

What a great philosopher he was, look what he's done for our world.

Since we know only philosophers are behind political systems, which philosophers were behind Hitler's?

What do you consider modern and why?

Last 50 years or so. Why? Because that's what's relevant to this debate, what recent contributions to philosophy are.

Do artists contribute to the community? Writers? Movie directors? How do you determine 'contribution' to society if you take culture out of the entire equation?

I'm not taking culture out of it completely, I don't see philosophers contributing to culture either.

I see them bickering about it, but I don't see them doing anything. Can someone please give me an example of what a philosopher from the past 50 years has done to impact culture?

[cinch]

Asher:

I don't really understand this whole "what have you done for me lately?" angle... If you don't enjoy philosophy, fine. That's your business. But to say that it is unworthy of being taught at a university because you didn't get anything out of it... seems a little self-centred.

As for contributing to the community... What constitutes contribution? Writing code? Managing finance? Designing a bridge? All necessary things, to be sure, but certainly there has to be more to life than "complete task, break, repeat"... No?

I'm not saying philosophy is the answer to all of life's mysteries (though it could help...), just that it, along with literature/film/etc., is something that society needs to keep itself human.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
History: "If we do not know history, we are doomed to repeat it.""

That's an excellent reason for why we should teach history up to the secondary level. If a people are totally ignorant of the history of their country and the world, they will have an incomple understanding of both. However, if you are holding everything to a strict standard of being useful, it'd be hard to say what value most advanced historical research would be. For instance, what is the value of historical research into say, Ming dynasty China?

"Shakesperean literature is overrated crap. I'm sure many people love it, I don't see a purpose to it with taxpayer's dollars. You wanna learn about Shakespeare, great, go form a studygroup. "

Someone could have a similar argument about any type of literature, but yet we still have English departments that research and criticize them.

"Astronomy is important because we can't live on this planet forever. Eventually we'll need to expand. We need to know what's out there, and mapping the stars is key to that."

Perhaps thats a case for mapping the nearby stars, but what of distant galaxies. For a good example of "blue sky" research, Astronomers have been able to determine the age and size of the universe. That isn't helpful to us here on Earth, but it's knowledge relevant to the field and so it is studied.

"I believe the public universities exist as to give back to the communities. They provide a well-educated workforce to fulfill jobs which buoy the economy which benefits everyone, they also provide valuable research into areas that will affect people's lives. "

We have institutions like that here in the states, it's called Technical institutes: CalTech, Virginia Tech, etc. A university, however, exists to discover knowledge.

[Asher]

Originally posted by cinch
Asher:

I don't really understand this whole "what have you done for me lately?" angle... If you don't enjoy philosophy, fine. That's your business. But to say that it is unworthy of being taught at a university because you didn't get anything out of it... seems a little self-centred.

It can be taught at universities, I just don't think public universities, especially in Canada, which are funded primarily by taxpayers, shouldn't have frivilous majors that don't benefit society.

Private institutions can go all out on it if they want, I don't care. I just like to know my money is being spent wisely.

As for contributing to the community... What constitutes contribution? Writing code? Managing finance? Designing a bridge? All necessary things, to be sure, but certainly there has to be more to life than "complete task, break, repeat"... No?

Contributions to the community involve technological breakthroughs that make life better, improvements in health, improved knowledge of how the world works around us, etc. Hell, even the faculties that contribute to culture are worthy of tax money.

I've seen no evidence whatsoever of what my tax money is doing paying for philosophy majors. I admit I'm not a philosopher and don't really know what they DO precisely in the higher levels, but I also readily admit that there's no evidence they're doing anything useful.

Why do you need to be a full time philosopher to be a philosopher? Why can't you study a scientific field and still be a philosopher?

The whole field of philosophy baffles my mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since we know only philosophers are behind political systems, which philosophers were behind Hitler's?

Nietzsche's were HIGHLY influential, but the formulation of the intricate details were done by Barres and Mussolini.

Because that's what's relevant to this debate, what recent contributions to philosophy are.

Why did you arbitrarily pick 50 years? I consider 200 years to be pretty 'modern'. You have Marx, Mill, Lenin, Trotsky, Bukarin, etc. in that time period.

What a great philosopher he was, look what he's done for our world.

As much as I dislike communism, I will say that Marx's writings have been mostly good for the world, because of the advancment of workers' issues when it was needed.

I'm not taking culture out of it completely, I don't see philosophers contributing to culture either.

In any 'culturally advanced' society you have a incredible amount of philosophers. I don't think that is mere coincidence.

Can someone please give me an example of what a philosopher from the past 50 years has done to impact culture?

Well you have postmodernists which recently arose, whose philosophical ideals are a basis for "Seinfeld" and "Curb your Enthusiasm". For the US, both of those shows are culturally significant.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

It can be taught at universities, I just don't think public universities, especially in Canada, which are funded primarily by taxpayers, shouldn't have frivilous majors that don't benefit society.

Private institutions can go all out on it if they want, I don't care. I just like to know my money is being spent wisely.

Shoveling your street doesn't benefit me one jot. Why should public funds be used to do it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
That's an excellent reason for why we should teach history up to the secondary level. If a people are totally ignorant of the history of their country and the world, they will have an incomple understanding of both. However, if you are holding everything to a strict standard of being useful, it'd be hard to say what value most advanced historical research would be. For instance, what is the value of historical research into say, Ming dynasty China?

That's a valid point. I'm not too thrilled about history being in public universities anyway, but I do understand that it can be useful. I still cannot understand how philosophy can be useful today, despite some attempts to educate me in it, the only people who have stood up to defend it tend to be people in the field or in another "humanities"/"social science" field.

Someone could have a similar argument about any type of literature, but yet we still have English departments that research and criticize them.

Unfortunately.

Perhaps thats a case for mapping the nearby stars, but what of distant galaxies.

That's why I whole-heartedly support investment in NASA.

For a good example of "blue sky" research, Astronomers have been able to determine the age and size of the universe. That isn't helpful to us here on Earth, but it's knowledge relevant to the field and so it is studied.

Precisely. You have no need to explain to me why "obscure" science research is useful, I understand that perfectly.

We have institutions like that here in the states, it's called Technical institutes: CalTech, Virginia Tech, etc. A university, however, exists to discover knowledge.

Technical Institutes, at least in Canada, are things like DeVry, SAIT, etc. They're not universities in that they don't teach thinking methodology or high-level thinking or abstraction, they teach you the technicals: HERE is how you program, HERE is how you network computers, etc. You'll find universitiy is quite different than that, but not because we have a department of philosophy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why did you arbitrarily pick 50 years?

Because 50 years ago, the university system wasn't the same as it was 200 years ago, and that's the focus of this debate.

Do you just not like it because you concede nothing useful has come in the last 50 years?

Well you have postmodernists which recently arose, whose philosophical ideals are a basis for "Seinfeld" and "Curb your Enthusiasm". For the US, both of those shows are culturally significant.

Imran, last I checked, Larry David didn't have a philosophy degree...

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Shoveling your street doesn't benefit me one jot. Why should public funds be used to do it?

Public safety? Duh?

Is this a trick question?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, last I checked, Larry David didn't have a philosophy degree...

You don't have to have a philosophy degree to be influenced by higher level philosophy. David is a very educated man (and did liberal arts in college). All social sciences is influenced by philosophy.

Because 50 years ago, the university system wasn't the same as it was 200 years ago, and that's the focus of this debate.

100 years ago the university system wasn't the same as it was 200 years ago. What is your point?

Do you just not like it because you concede nothing useful has come in the last 50 years?

On the contrary, Wittgenstein came within the last 50 years. Postmodernism, Fukiyama's 'The End of History' hypo, etc.

the only people who have stood up to defend it tend to be people in the field or in another "humanities"/"social science" field.

Because we understand how important philosophy is to our fields (such as economics, history, political science, etc.).

The question remains WHY does Astronomy matter, after all it gives us no benefits in the present, but it MAY in the future. Philosophers in unversities today may come up with a new politics in the future. Why is one potential futuristic endevor favored over another? Is it because of your science background and inherant bias against anything dealing with 'social sciences'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Public safety? Duh?

Is this a trick question?

So, public safety is something worth spending money on, but enlightenment is not? Is not an educated citizenry very important for the safety of a nation?