The Perils of Pop Philosophy

ThousandStars tips a new piece by Julian Sanchez, the guy who, in case you missed it, brought us a succinct definition of the one-way hash argument (of the type often employed in the US culture wars). This one is about the dangers of a certain kind of oversimplifying, as practiced routinely by journalists and bloggers. "This brings us around to some of my longstanding ambivalence about blogging and journalism more generally. On the one hand, while it's probably not enormously important whether most people have a handle on the mind-body problem, a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics. On the other hand, I look at the online public sphere and too often tend to find myself thinking: 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."

Comments

I think I speak for many of us when I say...

[iamdrscience]

What?

Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...

[linzeal]

For those still in school; or people like me who never left, I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you. A nascent Philosophy of Computer Science is developing and looking for help with the foundations (PDF File).

Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field. WV Quine and Popper have become interlocutors that after many readings I have access to when working on an intellectual task. Reading philosophy for me has brought great minds into contact with my own and given me a bit of humility and a shared sense of purpose I wish I had in my 20's.

Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...

[postbigbang]

But that's not often the ethos here.

You're supposed to react with your gut, prejudices, and empirical sense of I'm smarter-than-you tact here.

Failing that, say something funny or troll with goatse.

Failing that, add in something pithy, or something that whores karma points.

TFA makes the improper assumption that in various contexts, people give a crap what you think. They blurt out stuff randomly, and look for allies to justify their boorishness and prattle. Having found a mob or a tribe, they then evolve the idea in to a cult like status, reveling in the success of whatever their pseudo-punditry delivers. Blather at best. Hate at worst. Then the idea must be defended, and everything mushrooms with chest pounding and the attempt to stick other crap to the original idea to make it have gravity.

Welcome my friends, to the show that never ends. Come on in, come on in, come on in.

Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...

[pieisgood]

Giving this a +5 insightful is kind of ironic don't you think?

Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say...

[thtrgremlin]

This reminds me of a conclusion I came to recently; the line between fiction and non-fiction is silly. My wife reads a lot of fiction, and I read mostly non-fiction, but I do read fiction every once in awhile. She proposed a question and it got me to thinking, "What motivates me to read fiction?". What it came down to is that I pick books based on the level of insight they may provide and how much it may challenge what I currently think or believe. For the most part, I find that in non-fiction, but every once in awhile I find it in fiction. Most often this is classics that have stood the test of time.

Random blogs can be interesting or inspiring. The value isn't in what they say, but in how much they make you think or question things. Poorly written or researched opinions rare contain insight or thought provoking questions (as is suggestion FTA). I would prefer that if an article is short to state a problem and propose difficult to answer questions, then leave the reader to search for the answer, because the necessary information to answer clearly is rarely the scope of a blog.

Some people read something and want to read more, others either forget, or just consider it all they need to do to affirm their opinion. This is why I get upset at people that generally criticize wikipedia as a whole. It is great for what it is, and a good place to start to get an idea of what you can learn. If all you ever read is the wiki article on something, then you are going to have the same issue as you would have with any subject for which you only read two pages on. Wiki is what it is and is great, for the thinker, and the non-thinker. Criticize a non-thinker for not thinking, not for the sources. I really liked what the author said about confidence of knowledge and opinions.

The web gives us all a voice

[BadAnalogyGuy]

When Planned Parenthood was founded, many people were disgusted at the thought of an agency dedicated to abortion. Worse, though, was the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.

Now, here's the dilemma. If we take the position that speech itself is relatively useless since anyone can do it, and that only actions are important since only those willing to act will effect true change, then how do we reconcile the good which PP has brought while taking into consideration the completely immoral basis upon which it was founded?

Sanchez is wrong in his supposition that speech itself is wrong. Speech leads to debate, and debate can bring out the truth. The ancient Greek sophists knew this, and thus we have the practice of oratory.

Re:The web gives us all a voice

[Omestes]

Actually Sanger was a eugenics follower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia

Not all good ideas must come from good intentions. Planned Parenthood, in its modern conception might be a good idea, but it was originated from bad ideas.

Sometimes it shocks me how ignorant most of my fellow Americans are of their negative history. This is especially true of eugenics. Hitler actually ADMIRED us, he wrote a letter to Woodrow Wilson claiming as much. It was a big, accepted deal before WWII put a sour flavor into our mouths.

I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass

[DMiax]

Locking up knowledge so that only specialists get access is a stupid, destructive, elitist practice that is self defeating (who do you think funds most work???) and detracts from the life we're all capable of leading. Those who Suggest that popular accounts can't be good are just making a poor excuse for their own inability to communicate. Over-simplification isn't the whole problem. Poor communication is.

Since the summary clearly states that culture should not be locked up, you completely missed the point. Which is: can an expert (in any field, not just philosofy) divulge and disseminate his/her knowledge without the general public assume they are omniscient experts too?

Note however that the question arises also in scientific/technological matters. For example most Slashdotters assume to be authorities on any of those. Look at all the bad programming/computer administration advice you can get from the comments. (Sending my karma to hell for implying that slashdotters are less than omniscient on computer subjects)

In the end, the article is right and probably more general than that. We non-experts know nothing about climate change and we cannot understand the merit of the debate. A seemingly winning argument for us could be a huge logical fallacy if we knew a little more than that. The only remedy is to put trust in those we call experts, which is difficult because everybody pretends to be one. Bonus points for a working solution.

It's not that you're wrong...

[Talisman]

"Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place."

The problem I've found, even since my first debate class in 10th grade, is that the vast majority of people have no interest in what the 'right' answer is. They only care that their perspective is correct, and if an inconvenient counterpoint is presented, they discount, rail against, or outright ignore it.

In addition to this, the people presenting the counterpoints often do it in such a condescending manner, any slim hope there was of the other person considering an alternate viewpoint is evaporated in a blast of indignation.

The most productive problem solving I've ever done, and still do, is when I'm surrounded by smart people who don't believe their personal ego should factor into any decision made. We sit down at a table, drink lots of coffee, joke around, and at the end of the day, have solved most of our problems in elegant, efficient ways. We even laugh at our own dumb ideas when we've overlooked something that should have been obvious. I've also been in groups where you are crucified for uttering something that isn't completely accurate. This environment simply leads to a large amount of CYA, because once a person commits to the decision, he then MUST follow through, even if later he realizes it wasn't the best choice, because the environment he's working in is completely unforgiving. Basically if he admits there was a better option, it costs him his job. It's best to not have that type of fear, because no matter how hard you are on people, they will still make mistakes, even the brilliant ones.

The same holds true for personal philosophies; solving the problems that being alive presents. When you are listening to other people, you should actually listen to them. Try to see things their way. Don't bash them, even if you disagree. It doesn't hurt. It can often help. And when you're presenting a counterpoint, be genteel about it. Tact goes a very long way.

The Dude said it best, "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an ASSHOLE!"

Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass

[pjt33]

It's even more messy than that. In many areas (climate change is one, but pretty much any area where people are trying to influence politicians) I know I'm not an expert and don't understand the real issues but I can also see that one or both sides of the debate are depending on invalid or misleading use of statistics. So it's even harder to work out who the experts are, because in their efforts to disseminate their knowledge some step out of their area of expertise and come across as incompetent.

As a side note

[Aceticon]

Here's something interesting:

Following a link from the first article we get:

The Dunning-Kruger Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

which in turn leads us to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#The_psychology_of_cranks

which pretty much explains the logic behind at least 10% of the posts here in Slashdot.

Re:What has this got to do with IT ?

[Ma8thew]

Yes it is just you. Slashdot is 'News For Nerds'. Not 'News for IT Professionals', or 'News for Computer Science Graduates'. The article's subject has relevance to Slashdot readers, because many of us are well versed in a particular field, and hate it when the media or pundits use a simple argument to convince lay-people of something which is flat out wrong.

Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation

[damburger]

ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small & elite portion of society.

Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard. It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.

The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem. Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media. I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.

The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites. As someone with no medical training, I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future, rather than some bloke with 'common sense' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.

But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!

Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.

Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass

[VoidCrow]

> It can be done, or it can be done poorly.

But the point is that for many ideas, the majority of people are not in a position to evaluate whether the exposition is done well or poorly...

Even a topic as superficially obvious as evolution benefits from a basic mathematical intuition and a nodding acquaintance with mathematical complexity. Most popular descriptions I've seen of the evolutionary process characterise it as 'random chance', whereas it's a more complex mechanism comprising the following elements:

• A sieving process - everything that slips through the sieve *dies* or fares less well
• A fitness memory - the set of genomes across a genetically similar population, or an *individual* genome where fitness in not communicated.
• Optionally, a mechanism for distributing a subset of working fitness characteristics throught a genetically similar population (sexual reproduction or sideways gene transfer).
• An underlying randomisation driver in the form of things like cosmic ray damage and other influences that might tend to change the genome data.

So, option (a) random chance or option (b) the more complex system with its attendant subleties?

Option (a) genuinely *does* give irreducible complexity, whereas in option (b), the numbers work and you can use the mechanism to practical effect in genetic algorithms...

Which option sells best when a confident, charismatic person sells it to a typical member of the public? It's the easiest thing in the world to ignore the subtleties inherent to a complex topic. We're set up to do it - if we were not, we'd spend all our time gazing at the intricate designs in the rug and tracing them back to their religious, mathematical, philosophical and social roots. We'd starve or be eaten.

Is it arrogant and elitist to understand something which the majority of people have difficulty with? In the above instance, no-one is hiding the knowledge, and yet there's no shortage of people who doubt evolution. Finally, it's an argument from personal experience, but I'm from a working-class family. The rest of my family would glaze over and say something rude if I tried to talk about this kind of thing. They don't want to know. Ironically, they *do* believe in evolution, but the keyword here is *believe*. Place them in a different context, around glib people with a different agenda, and they'll believe that the Great Marmoset scooped up its poop and moulded it into a patty-cake, and thus we have the world. Forgive me if my arrogant elitist frustration leaks out all over the floor.

Re:Communication

[VoidCrow]

> Intelligence comes into it but only to a point . . .

Out of interest, what is that point?

Are you saying that the vast majority of the human race will have a good intuitive understanding of physics if only the argument is put well enough in sufficiently clear english?

Re:Communication

[moeinvt]

" . . .if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field."

I think it depends what field you're in, and the background of who you're trying to communicate with. An engineer talking to another engineer or scientist in a different field is one thing, an engineer talking to a dental hygienist is something else entirely.

Try explaining transient noise analysis, the hot electron effect or negative bias temperature instability in integrated circuits to a non-technical audience. Even if you start out with an "interested party", they'll turn into an expressionless zombie before you've finished.

It's not always a simple matter of communication skills. Some ideas require a foundation of knowledge, without which, the idea is nearly impossible to conceptualize.

Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence...

[maxume]

Without divinity, I don't see how any of those things are theological (or rather, absent divinity, I don't see what theology brings to them).

Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Pay an actor to wear a lab coat when he delivers your message. Have him wear a hard hat and carry a clipboard. Pose him in front of a very large machine, or a pristine meadow. That's where your dollars have their biggest effect.

Reminds me of a funny story. We got a new shiny 1.3Million dollar mass spec machine. The national news paper comes in to do a story. The ask if we can take a photo with "that machine in the background, because it looks more credible as a expensive scientific instrument...".

It was the printer.

Re:And this is all that is required anyway

[tnk1]

Certainly people can be persuaded. It happens all the time.

I used to be a death penalty supporter. Now, I'm not. Of course, I can't put my finger on any one thing that changed my mind, but the arguments were certainly there.

I also used to be significantly more inclined to see offensive war as a legitimate tool of policy, now I don't. Believe it or not, the Iraq war had nothing to do with that, as I honestly expected that a Mideast war was inevitable anyway. I just wish we had been a lot more justified and a lot better at managing the aftermath.

So, yes, people can change their mind. It just doesn't happen suddenly, so you might get the idea that no one is listening. They certainly are.