View source for Fallacies Of Philosophy
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
[[Category:Philosophy]] [[Category:Libertarian Philosophy]] {{DES | des = A great deal of philosophy is grossly misleading from the very start.}} === Assumptions that do not match reality. === Philosophy that attempts to address reality needs realistic assumptions. But there is a trade-off: the more general an assumption (and thus useful for reasoning), the less it conforms to reality. For example, if I say the sky is blue, most people would agree. But is it blue at night? On a cloudy day? When it is filled with dust or smoke? In space? No. And these exceptions are important: maybe more important than the original assumption. Often these assumptions are disguised as "apriori knowledge". Belief in a priori knowledge is touchingly naive. It is a philosophical superstition, just as souls are. Science has a superior approach, modeling. You don't "believe" in models. You accept or reject them based on whether they are accurate enough to beat out other models. Certainty is hardly an objective of science. Science is heuristic, not certain. === Philosophers are very poor at second-best solutions. === In economics, it is often recognized that best solutions to problems are impractical (such as placing everything into property-based markets.) So instead, there are second-best solutions which are practical but are also end-runs around the weaknesses of assumptions (such as social provision of defense, infrastructure and other public goods.) Too much philosophy attempts to cram all problems into the procrustean beds of best solutions. Once you understand that second-best solutions are all we can have, the question is how many such solutions are there. There might well not be just one second-best solution; there might be many. For example, there are many alternative economic solutions besides property-based markets such as social production, self-provision, NGOs, etc. There can be an ecology of such solutions based on multiple optima. === Philosophers generally don't measure. === They are usually prescientific. David Hume wrote: {{QuoteOne | Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding/flames}} When confronted with real-world problems that could have multiple causes, logical verbal models are insufficient. You MUST introduce measurement and mathematics into your models if you want to have any hope of valid answers. Logical verbal models are sufficient to specify possible chains (or networks) of causation, but telling which are significant is a quantitative problem that requires measurement. See: [[The Parable Of The Ship]]. Economics has a branch called econometrics which is concerned with providing empirical content. Philosophy usually lacks such content, and is usually backed with gut feelings and blustering authority. Better alternatives would be roots in scientific aspects of psychology, anthropology, evolution, and other fields. It's common knowledge that science MODELS reality, and that the models give approximations of the measurements we take. And often we have pretty good ideas of how close the approximations are and why they are only that close. If only philosophy was that humble, and if only philosophers had the concept of confidence interval. === Using a discrete model where a continuous model is needed. === Any time you are presented with a foundational assertion, such as self-ownership, where you are forced to say yes or no, rather than discuss how much or when you value it. For example, while you may prefer self-ownership, you might not in all cases. For example, where you have a choice of slavery or death. ''We economists do not like lexicographic preference offerings precisely because they lead to catastrophe--to results that nobody can with a straight face say are good or moral. Or, at least, we think that those who do say such are either bullshitting us or are unbalanced in mind.'' ''And they are unbalanced in mind--the fact that philosophers and lawyers claim to believe in lexicographic preference offerings is a sign that (a) their minds were unbalanced to begin with or (b) their professional training has unbalanced their minds.'' <br> [http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/robert-murphy-joins-the-reasonable-people-differ-about-whether-it-would-be-moral-to-tax-americans-to-destroy-an-asteroid-ca.html Brad DeLong] ''We economists commit many sins, but IMHO lexicographic preferences is one of the few that we do not commit. There are always tradeoffs, and we are always optimizing between alternatives along some margin...'' <br> [http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/delong-smackdown-watch-lexicographic-preferences.html Brad DeLong] === Presuming that clear and sharp categories can be used as a starting point. === There is a science of categorization called cladistics, but philosophers generally seem ignorant of it. In Jorge Luis Borges essay "The Analytical Language of John Wilkins", there is a [[wikipedia:Those_that_belong_to_the_Emperor|classification of animals from an apocryphal Chinese encyclopedia]]. The categories include: # those that belong to the Emperor, # embalmed ones, # those that are trained, # suckling pigs, # mermaids, # fabulous ones, # stray dogs, # those included in the present classification, # those that tremble as if they were mad, # innumerable ones, # those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, # others, # those that have just broken a flower vase, # those that from a long way off look like flies. All of these are very clear categories, but they do not work well together. Compare this to scientific classification by common descent, which does work well for pretty much all life. That's how I view most philosophical ideas such as truth, justice, good, evil, etc. While you can study the relationships between such ideas endlessly, as you can the relationships between the Chinese categories, you do not have much hope of getting to the root explanations, as we have in biology, because the unifying basis is not obvious in these far descended ideas. Starting with such ideas is a pretty clear [[wikipedia:Skyhook_(concept)#Skyhooks_and_cranes|skyhook]]. These ideas need to be explained from much simpler, preferably positivist ideas rooted in evolution, anthropology, game theory, etc. The science of cladistics bases classifications on shared, derived characteristics. Philosophers === Fallacy of hidden assumption of an object. === "I have a right." Against whom? (much more to put here.) "[...] it takes a philosopher to catch a philosopher." John Dewey, "Why Study Philosophy?" 1893 "Philosophy, take it by and large, has in fact been simply the anthropocentrism of the educated and intelligent, as religion is the anthropocentrism of the others." David Stove
Template:DES
(
view source
)
Template:Extension DPL
(
view source
)
Template:List
(
view source
)
Template:Quotations
(
view source
)
Template:QuoteOne
(
view source
)
Template:Red
(
view source
)
Return to
Fallacies Of Philosophy
.
Navigation menu
Views
Page
Discussion
View source
History
Personal tools
3.15.214.155
Talk for this IP address
Log in
Search
Search For Page Title
in Wikipedia
with Google
Translate This Page
Google Translate
Navigation
Main Page (fast)
Main Page (long)
Blog
Original Critiques site
What's new
Current events
Recent changes
Bibliography
List of all indexes
All indexed pages
All unindexed pages
All external links
Random page
Under Construction
To Be Added
Site Information
About This Site
About The Author
How You Can Help
Support us at Patreon!
Site Features
Site Status
Credits
Notes
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Guidelines To Create
Indexable Page/Quote
Indexable Book/Quote
Indexable Quote
Unindexed
Templates
Edit Sidebar
Purge cache this page