 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Experimental Philosophy
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: Experimental Philosophy |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Mar 13 - 07:15 PM The Ironic Success Of Experimental Philosophy Bill D, I would like to read your opinion on this. Also anyone else who has an informed opinion. And those of you who will nitpick over words or phrases used in the conversation absent the context of the article, knock yourselves out. You are going to do it anyway, you may as well enjoy it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Bill D Date: 25 Mar 13 - 07:21 PM Before clicking, and before I saw who started it, and before I saw my name, my mind went HUH? Category error! But I will now go read it... *grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Bill D Date: 25 Mar 13 - 07:46 PM Oh my...having actually attended the APA on two occasions, I can only say 'things have changed'. What they are talking about is rather like asserting the Bob Dylan is now "folk music" or whether Salvador Dali 'really' did art.... it just depends on your definition and feeling. A story to illustrate: -------------------------------------------------------------- William James, famous pragmatist, tells the story of several men out camping when they saw a squirrel on a tree. They tried to get a better look, but the squirrel kept moving to keep the tree between himself and the men, so they fell to arguing whether they were walking "around" the squirrel or not, since the squirrel was always facing them. One man (the Philosopher)came in late and told them simply that there IS no absolute answer, but it simple depended on a decision to adopt a common definition. If you all decide to mean by "around", being first to the north of the squirrel, then to the other directions, then the answer is yes, you were going around the squirrel (that is, the tree was the referent). If, however, you mean getting to the place you can see the squirrel's back, then the answer is 'no'. That sort of answer is a Pragmatic solution. ----------------------------------------------------------------- To me, X-phi is just a combination of Pragmatism, Linguistic Analysis and Psychology. They have committed 'equivocation' at each other as they seek to popularize something that probably should not be 'dumbed down for the masses'. A quote from the article: "Most philosophical arguments — whether they're about the epistemology of modality or about bioethics — are hard to condense into an accessible form for public consumption. Like any academic discipline, philosophy has its own jargon. It can be hard to appreciate what philosophers are saying, or why it's important, without knowing something about the broader context within which they're working." Gee... if the more esoteric aspects are "hard to condense", why do so? Do you popularize physics and astronomy by analyzing Star Trek? I taught freshman 101 classes for 2 years, and found only about 10% really got the point of what **philosophy** was really about, and only maybe 1% really liked it... the rest were mostly the sort that Tania Lombrozo says they are trying to reach. The entire article and its basic point bemuses me....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Rapparee Date: 25 Mar 13 - 10:43 PM Reminds me of a guy I knew who believed everything Plato said so he bowed his head and ran full tilt at a stone wall. That shadow of a real wall damned near killed him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 13 - 12:36 AM Bill, Thanks your the reply. I thought that the oxymoronic title would grab you attention. Your analysis was about what I suspected. More than 30 years ago I studied one philosophy course and several psychology courses. I would have called "Experimental Philosophy" as they describe it as either Psychology or Anthropology. Do you really need to be a philosopher to think up simple morality experiments? On the other hand philosophy departments were struggling 30 years a ago. If branching out into the social sciences gets a few extras grants and position it seems understandable. "Do you popularize physics and astronomy by analyzing Star Trek" As far as I know there are university credit courses that do just that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Ebbie Date: 26 Mar 13 - 01:20 AM I first read the title as 'Experiential Philosophy'. Is there such a critter? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 13 - 01:28 AM I think there is as much as there is Experimental Philosophy. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Rapparee Date: 26 Mar 13 - 10:03 AM Ach, ve distill der thoughts of Heidegger und put in zwei milliliters of Nietzsche (under der fume hood!) und slowly stir in der tincture of Swedenborg und JA! Ve have achieved Sartre!! Der Noble Prize is ours! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Bill D Date: 26 Mar 13 - 10:20 AM Philosophy does consider it relevant to 'meddle in everyone's business', as long as they do so in a metaanalysis... which means to look at the basic conceptual framework of the discipline and discuss how it fits into general epistemological scheme. Thus we get Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophy of Language...etc. This X-phi thing operates as if it were inside the discipline being studied, instead of operating as a separate branch of Philosophy. "Do you popularize physics and astronomy by analyzing Star Trek" "As far as I know there are university credit courses that do just that." Well... a friend of mine taught philosophy at Bucknell for many years, and used to teach a course on Sci-Fi and how philosophical ideas were used and expressed... but I never heard of serious Physics or Astronomy courses using Star Trek as a referent. I'd love to read the syllabus if you know of one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Lighter Date: 26 Mar 13 - 11:06 AM Nothing much new in what the article describes beyond the PR strategy of a catchy name. When I was in college, when dinosaurs controlled the earth, freshman textbooks - particularly in ethics - always asked students how they would interpret various assertions and practical dilemmas. I suppose EP's emphasis on semi-formal polling of the public is an interesting new twist - but only the emphasis. Public opinion polls sometimes ask the same sort of questions. (I'm very skeptical of claims that certain academic trends are "New! New! New!" That's not to say that EP isn't worthwhile. It just isn't that new.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Pete Jennings Date: 26 Mar 13 - 12:20 PM I'm not convinced that philosophy and psychology can be successfully mated or intertwined... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Bill D Date: 26 Mar 13 - 12:24 PM Is that a philosophical, or a psychological opinion? ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Pete Jennings Date: 26 Mar 13 - 01:01 PM LOL! However, I'd say it was more of an empirical opinion, based on studying the texts of art critics, historians and theorists who often use both approaches simultaneously to critically examine artists and their practices without necessarily producing a coherent understanding of either. Duchamp and Pollock spring to mind...they have both spawned many academic texts, but one was a piss-taker and the other was a piss-artist (no pun intended...nor reference to Serrano, so let's not go there!), personal characteristics which are simply ignored in the name of founding a supposedly erudite academic base for their art. (You may by now have an inkling of how I regard a lot of art texts...YMMV). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Bill D Date: 26 Mar 13 - 02:11 PM ".. an empirical opinion" Ok..good ...so it was philosophical as it should be. The *issue* is philosophical. Those who are dumbing down the parameters are doing bad-to-mediocre philosophy. Art, as you indicate, has a similar problem as people try to shoehorn any act of artificial display under the name. It is both easy and common to go that route, and we all know the arguments defending doing it... but we all also have certain doubts about stuff like throwing a paint covered canvas in one's driveway and driving a sports car thru it..(yes..it really happened) Any discipline or process needs some generally defined parameters, even if those change and evolve over time. The changes should not however, in my opinion, be gratuitous and silly, but rather be expanded according to need by those within the discipline. Sure... I realize that can be interpreted to allow almost anything by those who want their own 'game' to be recognized. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Pete Jennings Date: 26 Mar 13 - 02:37 PM Here you go, Bill, George Barber. Re the "generally defined parameters": in art-speak that is "context" and these days art students have to contextualize their work by referencing art history, art theory (in effect, any writing on art, but especially texts by other artists) or, you've guessed it, philosophy. The history and theory add an interesting and serious academic layer, while the philosophy needs to be treated with caution IMHO... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Bill D Date: 26 Mar 13 - 03:00 PM Ummm... those videos are- different. I am reminded of the cartoon I saw once of a couple of kids in tie-dyed shirts, gaudy mis-matched clothing and odd haircuts. "What's all this, then?" asks someone. "We're fighting the rising tide of conformity!" is the answer. (Just like thousands of others) Art-speak has always bothered me when artists write those introspective descriptions of their muse. I, myself, do woodturning, and carefully avoid asserting that I "examine the textual relationships of the spirit of the tree to the human life-force, while attempting to uncover nuances of biological seaf-actualization into a pleasing asymmetrical realization." I do like a statement I heard once that: "An artist is someone who makes a supply, whether or not there is any demand." I suppose that whether it is good art is a different matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Experimental Philosophy From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 13 - 03:26 PM >>>"Do you popularize physics and astronomy by analyzing Star Trek" "As far as I know there are university credit courses that do just that." Well... a friend of mine taught philosophy at Bucknell for many years, and used to teach a course on Sci-Fi and how philosophical ideas were used and expressed... <<<< >>>>but I never heard of serious Physics or Astronomy courses using Star Trek as a referent.<<<< I don't know of a situation where you previously asked for that or I said it was so. I was pointing out that there were Star Trek courses, I would hope that they would not explore the science which is mostly crap. I failed to mention the fact that many space scientists claim Star Trek as an inspiration. I saw one do that on NOVA two days ago. With that in mind it is not inconceivable that University Faculties may expect the courses to increase interest in science. |
