Feminists Crying, Losing Hoap

[_aj_]

2nd time this has happened. You aren't going all asbrus on us and need a new keyboard?

Fuuuuuaaaaarrrkkkkk.

No. It's because I use a iPad around the house to post to GB and it's always "helpfully" changing words on me silently.

[syntaxmachine]

No, not mad. Mostly because that shit doesn't happen. The science of physics, medicine, chemistry are all bring played out by physicists, doctors and chemists.

Putting aside the fact that 'philosophy' only hardened into an academic discipline distinct from the sciences recently and that historically scientists have addressed philosophical as well as scientific issues -- thereby seemingly legitimating them -- contemporary philosophers have contributed extensively to science: ask any linguist about "that paradigm of philosophy," Russell's Theory of Descriptions, or any cognitive scientist about Fodor's modularity thesis or Dennett's theory of consciousness.

While it is true that a not insignificant chunk of the field is the dubious sort of philosophizing that fields various autists obsessively debating retrerché thought experiments ad infinitum, it is also true that there is much more to philosophizing than that -- hence all the scientific contributions.

[cephissus]

Also shows that most liberal arts majors are retarded. But we already knew that.

Edit: I grow concerned at how far up the IQ chart Philosophy is. Makes me start to doubt the accuracy of this "IQ" thing.

what "things" are there with you and philosophy, bro?

[_aj_]

what "things" are there with you and philosophy, bro?

I knew a few philo majors in my day. Nuff said.

[_aj_]

Putting aside the fact that 'philosophy' only hardened into an academic discipline distinct from the sciences recently and that historically scientists have addressed philosophical as well as scientific issues -- thereby seemingly legitimating them -- contemporary philosophers have contributed extensively to science: ask any linguist about "that paradigm of philosophy," Russell's Theory of Descriptions, or any cognitive scientist about Fodor's massive modularity thesis or Dennett's theory of consciousness.

While it is true that a not insignificant chunk of the field is the dubious sort of philosophizing that fields various autists obsessively debating retrerché thought experiments ad infinitum, it is also true that there is much more to philosophizing than that -- hence all the scientific contributions.

Much of this sounds like meta-contributions to hard science -- methods of comprehension and abstraction, not insignificant, tho -- rather than contributions to the corpus of that science.

[TEH boob]

-Men are encouraged to study more difficult things like engineering, physics, etc.
-Women aren't discouraged from studying less difficult things like underwater basket weaving, etc.
Therefore, more women are in fluffy majors than men.

Are we dumb? No. Also, IQ changes, ya know? Are men smarter? Who knows. All we know is that men are pushed harder while women are still enabled to pull off that cute giggly idiot persona. Men simply aren't welcomed in those fluffy majors, that's why there aren't so many men.

Also, feminists would welcome men to the fluffy majors and welcome women to the more prestigious ones. It's about being able to do what interests you instead of fitting into a role that is predetermined for you.

[Parker]

I knew a few philo majors in my day. Nuff said.

passive aggressive backhanded verbal digs to Tbombz are not welcome here, although it is unsure if he feels the same way.

[agenda21nwo]

The stupidest people engineering the most social change.

We are so fucked.

Actually, they are probably smarter than the average man, but only because the average man is dumb as mud.

They are also devoid of moral intelligence, or a "greater" intelligence, meaning they cannot see beyond the obvious into the more subtle long term ramifications.  

Or if they CAN see the full ramifications, then they are immoral, in fact quite evil.

[Parker]

-Men are encouraged to study more difficult things like engineering, physics, etc.
-Women aren't discouraged from studying less difficult things like underwater basket weaving, etc.
Therefore, more women are in fluffy majors than men.

Are we dumb? No. Also, IQ changes, ya know? Are men smarter? Who knows. All we know is that men are pushed harder while women are still enabled to pull off that cute giggly idiot persona. Men simply aren't welcomed in those fluffy majors, that's why there aren't so many men.

Also, feminists would welcome men to the fluffy majors and welcome women to the more prestigious ones. It's about being able to do what interests you instead of fitting into a role that is predetermined for you.

Uh, no...there is a big push for women to study the "hard" sciences. And let's no forget that I believe the stats are that more women are graduating from college, grad school and law school than men.

[Roger Bacon]

-Men are encouraged to study more difficult things like engineering, physics, etc.
-Women aren't discouraged from studying less difficult things like underwater basket weaving, etc.
Therefore, more women are in fluffy majors than men.

Yes, but go back even further. Why are men the ones who are encouraged to study more difficult things?

 

[TEH boob]

@Parker: There's a big push for women to study hard sciences. However, there is no deterrence to women from studying the "soft" ones like there are for men. The encouragement women receive while considering a hard science is far less than the DIScouragement men receive while considering soft science.

@Bacon: Tradition. Although since men are physically stronger, it would have made more sense in the past to have had men do manual labor while women focused on intellectual pursuits.

[Roger Bacon]

@Bacon: Tradition.

Yeah, but why is that the tradition? If men and women are completely equal did it just happen by chance that men took a dominant role? Has pregnancy and delivering babies set women back historically?

[TEH boob]

Yeah, but why is that the tradition? If men and women are completely equal did it just happen by chance that men took a dominant role? Has pregnancy and delivering babies set women back historically?

Honestly, I'm going to go with this as an answer. People like to explain events or the way things are, they explain "backwards." Really, so much of what happens in the world is chance. But we can't stand "chance" as an answer, so we have to give an explanation for everything.

The problem is that traditions are hard to break. For example, men think women are bad at math. Women think women are bad at math. Are they, really? No. However, it's that self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe it, it'll be. So even if two people now have an equal opportunity to hone their math skills, if one believes their skills are better, they'll be the one labelled, "good at math."

[Roger Bacon]

Honestly, I'm going to go with this as an answer. People like to explain events or the way things are, they explain "backwards." Really, so much of what happens in the world is chance. But we can't stand "chance" as an answer, so we have to give an explanation for everything.

The problem is that traditions are hard to break. For example, men think women are bad at math. Women think women are bad at math. Are they, really? No. However, it's that self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe it, it'll be. So even if two people now have an equal opportunity to hone their math skills, if one believes their skills are better, they'll be the one labelled, "good at math."

Interesting post, good points!

[Gonuclear]

Putting aside the fact that 'philosophy' only hardened into an academic discipline distinct from the sciences recently and that historically scientists have addressed philosophical as well as scientific issues -- thereby seemingly legitimating them -- contemporary philosophers have contributed extensively to science: ask any linguist about "that paradigm of philosophy," Russell's Theory of Descriptions, or any cognitive scientist about Fodor's massive modularity thesis or Dennett's theory of consciousness.

While it is true that a not insignificant chunk of the field is the dubious sort of philosophizing that fields various autists obsessively debating retrerché thought experiments ad infinitum, it is also true that there is much more to philosophizing than that -- hence all the scientific contributions.

Russell's theory of descriptions cuts no ice with linguists.  It is a (failed) attempt to explain how proper names work.  Fodor's absurd "language of thought" junk is ignored by neuroscientists, and Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is aimed at debunking mentalistic myths that have plagued philosophy since the time of Descartes.  He uses the findings of modern cognitive science; he is not a contributor to them in any sense. 

Philosophy has become irrelevant to science, and no philosopher from the nineteenth century on has made any contribution to science whatsoever.

[Mawse]

That 'joke' is really getting old.

Because It's not like you could stop it instantly and forever by just posting a photo of the two of you holding a piece of paper saying "I'm not a friendless , chubby, big-nosed trust fund spastic"

 

[syntaxmachine]

Much of this sounds like meta-contributions to hard science -- methods of comprehension and abstraction, not insignificant, tho -- rather than contributions to the corpus of that science.

If true, what's wrong with that?

Russell's theory of descriptions cuts no ice with linguists.  It is a (failed) attempt to explain how proper names work.  Fodor's absurd "language of thought" junk is ignored by neuroscientists, and Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is aimed at debunking mentalistic myths that have plagued philosophy since the time of Descartes.  He uses the findings of modern cognitive science; he is not a contributor to them in any sense. 

Philosophy has become irrelevant to science, and no philosopher from the nineteenth century on has made any contribution to science whatsoever.

I'm rather sure that Russell's Theory of Descriptions is a semantic theory of, predictably enough, descriptions, though it is true that he applied it to proper names as well. Independent of the truth of the Theory -- and probably descriptions don't literally have quantificational structure -- it has spurred a century of productive debate and any linguist will recognize it as a contribution to their field (just ask).

I mentioned Fodor's modularity thesis and not his Language of Thought Hypothesis, though both are major contributions to the 'mind as computer' paradigm that is so widespread in cognitive science. Again, this is the case whether the hypotheses are true or not and can be confirmed by experts in the field. Your denial of this seems to hinge on the implicit claim that neuroscience is the only 'real' science of mind, a contentious claim.

Finally, while Dennett didn't "contribute" to the study of consciousness in any direct sense, he did synthesize cognitive science research in an interesting and productive manner. You might have an overly narrow definition of 'contribution' if only the production of experimental data counts as such, something it looks like you might be implicitly claiming.

Philosophy won't necessarily continue to contribute as it has in the above examples, but that it has as a contingent matter of fact seems to me undeniable.

[Gonuclear]

If true, what's wrong with that?

I'm rather sure that Russell's Theory of Descriptions is a semantic theory of, predictably enough, descriptions, though it is true that he applied it to proper names as well. Independent of the truth of the Theory -- and probably descriptions don't literally have quantificational structure -- it has spurred a century of productive debate and any linguist will recognize it as a contribution to their field (just ask).

I mentioned Fodor's modularity thesis and not his Language of Thought Hypothesis, though both are major contributions to the 'mind as computer' paradigm that is so widespread in cognitive science. Again, this is the case whether the hypotheses are true or not and can be confirmed by experts in the field. Your denial of this seems to hinge on the implicit claim that neuroscience is the only 'real' science of mind, a contentious claim.

Finally, while Dennett didn't "contribute" to the study of consciousness in any direct sense, he did synthesize cognitive science research in an interesting and productive manner. You might have an overly narrow definition of 'contribution' if only the production of experimental data counts as such, something it looks like you might be implicitly claiming.

Philosophy won't necessarily continue to contribute as it has in the above examples, but that it has as a contingent matter of fact seems to me undeniable.

Linguistics ignores Russell's theory of descriptions, with the possible exception of his analysis of proper names, but that was many years ago, before it was refuted by Saul Kripke.  Please reference even one linguist who acknowledges Russell's contributions to his/her field. You are confusing linguistics with the philosophy of language.

Fodor's 1983 book that presents his early ideas on the modularity of mind was part of a reaction against behaviorism and its materialistic consequences for the philosophy of mind (as such, he worked in opposition to such philosophers of mind as Gilbert Ryle). However, Fodor, unlike cognitive scientists, rejected physicalism entirely.  His mentalistic stance has not been part of neuroscience or cognitive science for at least half a century.  The language of thought is the most recent development of his representational/mentalistic theory of mind, which is likewise a contribution to the ongoing debate within philosophy between materialists like Dennett and modern mentalists like Chalmers.  Fodor, like Dennett, is a philosopher who uses the ideas of cognitive science, but has made no contributions to the subject himself.  The mentalist/materialist war that still rages within the philosophy of mind is viewed as irrelevant by modern cognitive scientists.

As for Dennett, no I am not advancing the absurd notion that contributions to science are limited only to the production of experimental data.  That would eliminate both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, among others.  I am making the (obvious) point that a contribution to science implies extending an existing scientific theory in an original way, or else producing a new scientific theory, or providing scientific evidence that refutes such a theory.  Neither Russell, Fodor, nor Dennett has done any of that.

[SF1900]

Linguistics ignores Russell's theory of descriptions, with the possible exception of his analysis of proper names, but that was many years ago, before it was refuted by Saul Kripke.  Please reference even one linguist who acknowledges Russell's contributions to his/her field. You are confusing linguistics with the philosophy of language.

Fodor's 1983 book that presents his early ideas on the modularity of mind was part of a reaction against behaviorism and its materialistic consequences for the philosophy of mind (as such, he worked in opposition to such philosophers of mind as Gilbert Ryle). However, Fodor, unlike cognitive scientists, rejected physicalism entirely.  His mentalistic stance has not been part of neuroscience or cognitive science for at least half a century.  The language of thought is the most recent development of his representational/mentalistic theory of mind, which is likewise a contribution to the ongoing debate within philosophy between materialists like Dennett and modern mentalists like Chalmers.  Fodor, like Dennett, is a philosopher who uses the ideas of cognitive science, but has made no contributions to the subject himself.  The mentalist/materialist war that still rages within the philosophy of mind is viewed as irrelevant by modern cognitive scientists.

As for Dennett, no I am not advancing the absurd notion that contributions to science are limited only to the production of experimental data.  That would eliminate both Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, among others.  I am making the (obvious) point that a contribution to science implies extending an existing scientific theory in an original way, or else producing a new scientific theory, or providing scientific evidence that refutes such a theory.  Neither Russell, Fodor, nor Dennett has done any of that.

Does Goodrums supplement site, Caliber Fitness, extend science at all?

[Gonuclear]

Graph simply shows that most female students dont have an IQ of 120+ and most non science based subjects dont require you too..

This would be replicated in general society..

The graph shows nothing of the sort. Did you read the link?  No, you didn't, obviously.

[Gonuclear]

Engineer crying, losing hoap.

U mad that us philosophy grads score higher on the GRE and make substantive contributions to science through theory development and the ethnoscientific, a priori conceptual analysis of folk concepts while u mash out code? U mad?

Oh, you're a philosophy fraud, I mean "grad".  That explains a lot.

[Vince B]

This thread is more interesting than debating the merits of having Blue Stars!

Dennett's book, "Darwin's Dangerous Ideas" is a powerful one. It appears that the materialistic view of the universe will prevail.

Karl Popper was a giant in the philosophy of science and I see the concept 'refutation' being used here.

I did a course in the Philosophy of Neuroscience. Quite interesting that philosophers have a role to play in the science.

[phreak]

Because It's not like you could stop it instantly and forever by just posting a photo of the two of you holding a piece of paper saying "I'm not a friendless , chubby, big-nosed trust fund spastic"

 

Okay, assuming we would do that. Then everyone will just to go the next excuse: "you two are actors paid by Joon!". It's a complete and utter no-win situation, which makes the harping on it quite pathetic. If I'm suddenly considered a Joon gimmick due to my relation with Bertha (while having a consistent back story, razor sharp wit and demonstrably superior linguistic skills since 2005), then anyone is. You are too. Prove me wrong, Joon.


Also, holding a scrap of paper with "I'm not a friendless , chubby, big-nosed trust fund spastic" would be a lie, seeing as I'm all those things except for having a trust fund.

[_aj_]

Provided Syntax' and Gonuclear's debate is genuine and not cribbed from some textbook, it certainly has raised the level of discourse. To have this thread next to the Nick Toscani train wreck is some serious cognitive dissonance.

[Shockwave]

Provided Syntax' and Gonuclear's debate is genuine and not cribbed from some textbook, it certainly has raised the level of discourse. To have this thread next to the Nick Toscani train wreck is some serious cognitive dissonance.

Syntax is sharp. The other dude I dont know as about.