Mentioning Phil phD's

[Asher]

So why is it the programs you mention have lower entrance requirements, if on average they are smarter?

I certainly don't consider people who major in philosophy to be that bright in general. That would be why it's laughed at by people who may be studying something in a somewhat...I don't know, real field.

Philosophy funding should be slashed, it's totally and completely useless and sucks up funds from more necessary fields.

As a computer science student I was forced to take two philosophy courses, and they've been filled with nothing but common sense and semantics which waste everyone's time.

The only job someone with a philosophy degree can do is teach philosophy to others, and the only reason people take philosophy is for the GPA boost.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Japher
If there isn't a right answer then how can there be a wrong answer?

There can be better and worse answers. For example, quantum mechanics is a better answer to the question "how does the world work" than the statement "because God makes it work."

Anyway, if you believe that you know there are no right and wrong answers, haven't you contradicted yourself since you seem to think you know the answer to the question, "Are there any right and wrong answers"?

["Pass that man the hemlock!", cried the mob.]

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
In my experience computer science and mathematics students tend to be excellent logicians but not so good at ethics or political philosophy.

That would explain why of my two Philosophy of Logic classes, the philosophy majors were consistently at the bottom of the class. The only people ever to ask questions tended to be the same three kids, all of which were philosophy majors, all of which asked the most inane, obvious questions I've ever heard in a college classroom...

And for the record, that course was taught by a guy who originally got a philosophy PhD (Berkeley, I don't know if that's a good Philosophy school or not), told us all that he considered it a mistake, and then got a CS masters. He's a very bright guy though, 27 years old, two masters and 1 PhD...He's taught at Stanford and University of Technology in Vienna as well.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
So why is it the programs you mention have lower entrance requirements, if on average they are smarter?

I certainly don't consider people who major in philosophy to be that bright in general. That would be why it's laughed at by people who may be studying something in a somewhat...I don't know, real field.

Are you talking about graduate school or undergraduate work - that is like the difference between amateur and professional boxing. Philosophy is a "real field" within the academy, it is things like "media design" and "management" that have no place there. A university is supposed to be a place of disinterested inquiry first and not a job training centre.

Philosophy funding should be slashed, it's totally and completely useless and sucks up funds from more necessary fields.

I pointed out some uses for it in an earlier post. If you think that so called "useless" fields should be slashed then that would eliminate large chunks of most universities. Unless you give some account of what you mean by "useless" I can't even accept this as an argument.

Besides, philosophers are really cheap so you wouldn't save that much money. We certainly don't need elaborate or expensive equipment - we get by with these strange things called "books".

As a computer science student I was forced to take two philosophy courses, and they've been filled with nothing but common sense and semantics which waste everyone's time.

What were these? Logic? I agree that undergraduate logic is far from interesting, but it is useful if you go on in the philosophy of Language. Perhaps you just went to a lousy school.

The only job someone with a philosophy degree can do is teach philosophy to others, and the only reason people take philosophy is for the GPA boost.

Balderdash. Most of the people in my current class took it because they want to learn about it. They most certainly did not take it for the GPA boost since hardly anyone is doing that well on it. Yet 3/4 of the students have stuck out the course past the drop date.

Again I put it to you that you go to a mickey mouse school which does not run courses to a respectable standard. That's the only explanation for the GPA boost notion. In fact if students at my institution wanted to get a GPA boost I would advise them not to take philosophy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
There can be better and worse answers. For example, quantum mechanics is a better answer to the question "how does the world work" than the statement "because God makes it work."

That would be because the latter statement is wrong.

Anyway, if you believe that you know there are no right and wrong answers, haven't you contradicted yourself since you seem to think you know the answer to the question, "Are there any right and wrong answers"?

Is this a trick question?

He doesn't believe that himself, he was refuting you...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

That would explain why of my two Philosophy of Logic classes, the philosophy majors were consistently at the bottom of the class. The only people ever to ask questions tended to be the same three kids, all of which were philosophy majors, all of which asked the most inane, obvious questions I've ever heard in a college classroom...

And for the record, that course was taught by a guy who originally got a philosophy PhD (Berkeley, I don't know if that's a good Philosophy school or not), told us all that he considered it a mistake, and then got a CS masters. He's a very bright guy though, 27 years old, two masters and 1 PhD...He's taught at Stanford and University of Technology in Vienna as well.

Berkeley is an excellent school, not for what I do, but an excellent school nonetheless. Some people aren't really cut out for it - I know several people who have PhDs in other disciplines but who threw them over for philosophy - this just happens.

BTW what did they ask?

I am aware that many undergrad phil majors are time wasters but these people get weeded out by grad school which leaves us with people like your former lecturer.

And "well-known" is an Americanism, is it not?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
I pointed out some uses for it in an earlier post.

And I still think the uses you listed are grasping at straws and certainly don't require their own department, and certainly shouldn't be giving out PhDs for it...

If you think that so called "useless" fields should be slashed then that would eliminate large chunks of most universities.

Isn't that the point, though? It's fine if it's a private institution, public institutions shouldn't be wasting the people's money teaching something that doesn't contribute anything to the society, despite the attempts of the majors in those fields to argue otherwise.

Besides, philosophers are really cheap so you wouldn't save that much money. We certainly don't need elaborate or expensive equipment - we get by with these strange things called "books".

Professors, classroom space, etc. -- all of those aren't cheap.

What were these? Logic? I agree that undergraduate logic is far from interesting, but it is useful if you go on in the philosophy of Language.

Explain to me how that would be useful at all...

Again I put it to you that you go to a mickey mouse school which does not run courses to a respectable standard. That's the only explanation for the GPA boost notion. In fact if students at my institution wanted to get a GPA boost I would advise them not to take philosophy.

Man, you're so high on yourself...

Philosophy is completely useless. Completely. You've not given any real "uses" for it in this thread, just lame attempts to make it sound useful...

Philosophy should be developed by your own personal experience, not dictated to you by some academic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
BTW what did they ask?

To tell you the truth, I don't even remember. It was last year.
I do remember all of my CS friends rolling their eyes constantly in the class though...

And "well-known" is an Americanism, is it not?

I should hope not, because it's also taught like that in Canada as well. "high-ranking", "well-known", and the like are grammatically correct, "high ranking" and "well known" are not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

That would be because the latter statement is wrong.

Both can be construed as explanatory hypotheses, the former is clearly the more useful explanation. If you are a pragmatist and think that "useful" approximates "true" the argument would be even stronger. Similarly with evolution and intelligent design et al.

Is this a trick question?

He doesn't believe that himself, he was refuting you...

But if it was true, it must be false. Surely you studied the liar paradox if you did logic - it is similar to this.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

To tell you the truth, I don't even remember. It was last year.
I do remember all of my CS friends rolling their eyes constantly in the class though...

Perhaps they didn't understand the question.

I should hope not, because it's also taught like that in Canada as well. "high-ranking", "well-known", and the like are grammatically correct, "high ranking" and "well known" are not.

The Canadian spelling system is a hybrid of the American and English systems. I can provide you with more examples if you like.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
And for the record, that course was taught by a guy who originally got a philosophy PhD (Berkeley, I don't know if that's a good Philosophy school or not), told us all that he considered it a mistake, and then got a CS masters. He's a very bright guy though, 27 years old, two masters and 1 PhD...He's taught at Stanford and University of Technology in Vienna as well.

Bright as this guy might be, he certainly failed in his job: after two courses you didn't get any appreciation of philosophy whatsoever.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Philosophy is completely useless. Completely. You've not given any real "uses" for it in this thread, just lame attempts to make it sound useful...

Philosophy should be developed by your own personal experience, not dictated to you by some academic.

The last statement is particularly risible. Studying philosophy is one way to make this process more efficient since you don't have to start from nothing. You admit that you haven't studied anything other than logic so it's not clear that you have any idea what you are talking about.

Anyway, you are up to your usual tricks - you haven't answered my question and told me what you mean by "useful". I certainly find philosophy useful everyday, but you seem to be using the term in a different sense. Please elaborate.

[Shi Huangdi]

"
That would be because the latter statement is wrong. "

Can you prove that? Why shouldn't we simply assume the latter statement as correct?

"It's fine if it's a private institution, public institutions shouldn't be wasting the people's money teaching something that doesn't contribute anything to the society, despite the attempts of the majors in those fields to argue otherwise."

So then what about blue sky pursuit of knowledge in the hard sciences, information that can increase our understanding of the universe and its laws but not nessecarily have direct benefit to society. The purpose of universities isn't to try to provide a direct benefit society but to pursue knowledge.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"
That would be because the latter statement is wrong. "

Can you prove that? Why shouldn't we simply assume the latter statement as correct?

"It's fine if it's a private institution, public institutions shouldn't be wasting the people's money teaching something that doesn't contribute anything to the society, despite the attempts of the majors in those fields to argue otherwise."

So then what about blue sky pursuit of knowledge in the hard sciences, information that can increase our understanding of the universe and its laws but not nessecarily have direct benefit to society. The purpose of universities isn't to try to provide a direct benefit society but to pursue knowledge.

Nice one

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


Bright as this guy might be, he certainly failed in his job: after two courses you didn't get any appreciation of philosophy whatsoever.

That's a bit unfair - someone would have to be a triple genius with cherries on top to be able to do this in formal logic. It's a lot easier when you are teaching The Republic.