Difference between revisions of "Fallacies Of Philosophy"
From Critiques Of Libertarianism
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{DES | des = A great deal of philosophy is grossly misleading from the very start.}} | {{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. | |
| − | + | === 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. | 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: "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." | |
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. | 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. | ||
| − | + | === 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.'' | ''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.'' | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2011/02/delong-smackdown-watch-lexicographic-preferences.html Brad DeLong] | [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. | : There is a science of categorization called cladistics, but philosophers generally seem ignorant of it. | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
The science of cladistics bases classifications on shared, derived characteristics. Philosophers | 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." | + | "[...] 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 | "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 | ||
