A Controversial Point of View

[madnak]

There is one core assumption that virtually everyone is making in the .999~ thread. That assumption is dead wrong.

Also, this assumption is why David Sklansky's thinking is muddled.

Philosophy >>>>>>> practical applications. A philosopher or scientist is to an engineer as an engineer is to a robot or computer. Being able to follow a particular procedure doesn't indicate understanding of a subject. Being able to memorize formulas doesn't indicate understanding of mathematics.

It's true that some useful formulas and theorems have been derived from processes rather than insights - but the most powerful principles (in mathematics and elsewhere) were created through philosophy.

Philosophy is sometimes defined based on its etymology as "love of wisdom." It's sometimes defined based on classical or academic groupings. It's sometimes described as a "relative" thing. I will clarify here that I mean philosohy in the original sense, and in the basic sense that's applied throughout all cultures. Philosophy is a drive to understand. Those who possess such a drive will be inherently attracted to the things we label "philosophy." And, while most scholars, academics, scientists, and other "learned" people will claim such a desire, only a very few of them will actually possess it.

This is much more important than David's high-IQ concern in terms of significant genius. It's also much more important than the ability to solve partial differential equations (although I imagine everyone in this category can learn to do so). Personally, I don't suggest elitism - but if elitism is justified, then it's justified only as it applies to the philosophers. They're the ones, in fact, who represent all three of the unique human attributes - imagination, communication, and understanding.

"A finely tempered nature longs to escape from personal life into the world of objective perception and thought; this desire may be compared with the townsman's irresistible longing to escape from his noisy, cramped surroundings into the silence of high mountains, where the eye ranges freely through the still, pure air and fondly traces out the restful contours apparently built for eternity."

- Albert Einstein

[chezlaw]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] this is a fun thread so I'll add

... and the reasons why DS thinking is generally not muddled is because he is a philosopher.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

madnak,

David doesn't dispute your main contention. He fully recognizes the difference between someone who can independantly derive and prove a theorem, and someone who can apply it, or between a theoretical physicist and an engineer who applies that theory in concrete situatons. He in fact is talking about people with those theoretical abilities and not just those without them but who are smart enough to apply same. He also makes those distinctions in poker theory regarding those who can correctly analyze the theoretical basis for why observed plays work in various situations and those who can't.

If you want to try to refute his assertions that one should follow the beliefs and probabilities of high IQ non-believers as experts much more likely to be correct, then I suggest you focus on matters of epistemic probability and his caveat that such high IQ people have to have actually thorougly studied the matter of religion, which they mostly haven't.

[madnak]

That's not the impression I've gotten from his posts, but I admit I've only skimmed the threads. He seems to hate philosophy and think IQ is everything, based on my reading. Regardless, David's position is only peripherally related to the thread.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
this is a fun thread so I'll add

... and the reasons why DS thinking is generally not muddled is because he is a philosopher.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
shhhhhh. I enjoy his philosophical musings and if there is any muddling it's when he tries to 'move down' to mathematics too early in the process. If he finds out he's doing philosophy we'll be subjected to even more of the - if 3 hens lay 3 eggs 'arguments'.

good post madnak, luckyme

[madnak]

I've been convinced that I'm grossly misinterpreting David. So let's focus on the view itself. Normally when I express this view, even very politely, it gets some very disapproving responses.

[guesswest]

I've always been amused by DS's disdain for philosophy because that's exactly what he's doing with all the ethics and religion questions he posts on here. And doing it well. This stuff is all 100% philosophy - in fact I'd love if DS could clarify exactly what he thinks philosophy is.

As far as your general point goes I have nothing to add because I don't really disagree. Except to say philosophy is much more about finding questions than answers. It's not that it doesn't place a high value on the answers, rather that once a question is answered it is no longer philosophy - it finds its way into another discipline. That's why we see philosophy gives birth to new areas every so often, its latest graduate being psychology. Philosophy is often described as 'everything else', and I like that description. It's also why in most philosophy departments, philosophers are more closely alligned with their related departments outside of philosophy, than with other philosophers - eg philosophy of mathematics folk hang out with math people, not with philosophy people.

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
I've always been amused by DS's disdain for philosophy because that's exactly what he's doing with all the ethics and religion questions he posts on here. And doing it well. This stuff is all 100% philosophy - in fact I'd love if DS could clarify exactly what he thinks philosophy is.

As far as your general point goes I have nothing to add because I don't really disagree. Except to say philosophy is much more about finding questions than answers. It's not that it doesn't place a high value on the answers, rather that once a question is answered it is no longer philosophy - it finds its way into another discipline. That's why we see philosophy gives birth to new areas every so often, its latest graduate being psychology. Philosophy is often described as 'everything else', and I like that description. It's also why in most philosophy departments, philosophers are more closely alligned with their related departments outside of philosophy, than with other philosophers - eg philosophy of mathematics folk hang out with math people, not with philosophy people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with this, madnak's, and chezlaw's comments. What degree do you receive after (presumably) making a novel contribution to some field, a PhD, i.e., "a doctor of philosophy." Hell, next week im going to a conference comprised primarily of philosophers and neuroscientists. Maybe david's world view was overly influenced by the post-sputnik educational culture in the US and he grew suspicious of all those philosopher-types who only wear black and talk about sartre and camus (a tiny niche in academic philsosophy). Hope he stops fighting the inevitable and that one day his epithet reads: "DS: philosopher of poker and other stuff."

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been convinced that I'm grossly misinterpreting David. So let's focus on the view itself. Normally when I express this view, even very politely, it gets some very disapproving responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's probably similar to a swordsmaster teaching his student by small cuts until he's able to surpass the teacher.

Alas, but that may be giving him far too much credit.

[David Sklansky]

My only actual experience with any philosopher or philosophical writings occurred when I was six years old and I was at my super brilliant cousin's house. He was five at the time and later became valedictorian and Harvard graduate.

We found a book on the shelf called Being and Nothingness. We started reading it to each other while rolling on the floor laughing. Every few months we would repeat the experience picking out random passages. Perhaps this is not the best way to form my opinion of the subject.