ugh...just because I have an opinion on whether numbers are real doesn't mean I study mathematical realism...these philosophers answering the survey will be often responding to issues which they haven't studied...

you...ugh...guh

Astute and irrelevant. I'm allowed to find it interesting, if it were the case, that some sect of philosophers who don't study mathematical realism tends to indicate differing (however uniformed) opinions about numbers compared to those who study mathematical realism. Or compared to philosophers in general. Or compared to those who study phenomenology.

Also, the reason cog sci people don't go near metaphysics is because people in metaphysics have careers to protect and they throw fits. The day is coming when metaphysicians will not have careers except in museums

That might be true, but that is not the trend. For the first 3/4 of the last century metaphysics was dying out, but starting in 70's on to today I would say it has only gotten more popular.

Note: I usually find metaphysics boring and don't do any work in that area.

Maybe it's just for the irony?

If we change one individual for another (hypothetical), but maintain all the other variables the same, the outcome will be different.

I can go either for “Compatibilism” or “no free will” depending on the concept of free will.


A question about Libertarianism

Assuming that we have a soul that overrides physical causality, what makes that soul taking one decision or another?

There is a world in which he tops that list!

But there's no sufficient R-relation..it's not an accessible nearby possible world

Well, actually...it's the actual world, I know a guy who worships DL.

big fan here though I don't do worship in this world.

plus he was part of my hatrick where 3 consequative living philosophers I did papers on suddenly weren't. 7 points awarded for the first to guess the other two.

Didn't you consider that your writing papers on people might be killing them?!

Have you published?

Yes...leave me alone though plz!

I don't see how the first paragraph makes philosophers unique. How is a mathematician not trained to do the same thing? Not only do their arguments have to make sense intuitively to themselves and others, having as few flaws as possible, they actually have to be completely airtight. I suppose there is some difference between forming entirely deductive arguments and the kind of arguments philosophers make, but it seems that a mathematician ought to have this same level of self-regulation and identifying problems in their arguments.

I use mathematics as an example because it's the subject I am most familiar with, but I would imagine that the same can be said for anyone in any of the hard sciences, and probably also of anyone who is a programmer. In fact, I'd say that in practically any academic field, it is absolutely required that one has these skills. Even in history, any published paper is going to have a thesis which is backed by strong arguments, and (hopefully?) if the arguments are faulty in many ways, the paper is going to be rejected.

I just feel that philosophers like to say they're unique because they have some kind of powerful mental training that others lack, when in reality, it has more to do with what they study, which you've avoided answering, and I feel like this was one of the main questions the OP had.

The difference is that philosophers are trained in ARGUMENTS in general...and not just "philosophical" arguments. So, the mathematician is only trained in mathematical arguments and may have trouble evaluating arguments from different disciplines (though of course, perhaps not). The point is that the philosopher is more trained in argumentation in general and is able to analyze arguments from different fields more readily.

Then, of course, the philosopher is an expert in philosophical topics...but that should be obvious (though it's clearly not).

I've never been around any actual philosophers, other than the two professors I had at UMBC, one of which basically just said "religion is the antithesis of reason" over and over, and the other believes in ESP, and philosophy majors, who I think due to self-selection bias are on average not very bright (obviously some of them are, it's just that a lot of slackers also become philosophy majors), so perhaps my views are biased somewhat, but I find this difficult to believe.

Do you have any examples of philosophers who had a significant impact on the beliefs of another field?

Popper...Dennett...Chalmers...Churchland(s)

QED?

Having been around philosophers quite a bit I don't buy the philosophers are people specially trained in argument or whatever line. It is one aspect of what is studied in a typical undergraduate program of philosophy, but I think philosophy has much more to do with systematically pursuing ultimate questions or what have you than rigorous argument forms or whatever. I'm sure there are better definitions, but I see the rigorous argument line as merely a necessary condition shared with other fields of inquiry.

Philosophy departments teach the "critical thinking" and argumentation courses to other departments...what does that tell you?

Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Pascal, Helmholtz, Duhem? The history of science and math is inextricably bound to the history of philosophy.

That stuff is definitely relevant and an aspect of philosophy. I just don't see it as the sine qua non or even most important aspect of philosophy.

This only tells me that schools want to have curricula that appear to create well-rounded students. I have yet to meet a math major who didn't think the philosophy department's critical thinking courses were a complete joke compared to the first week of a first semester analysis course.

OTOH, it is pretty clear that modern philosophers have had a lot of influence on what direction to go in with things like cognitive science, from your examples, and that someone trained in philosophy, e.g. helmholtz, can go on to have success in other fields with that training.

I think Simplicitus' statement "...I don't buy the philosophers are people specially trained in argument or whatever line...but I see the rigorous argument line as merely a necessary condition shared with other fields of inquiry" sums up the main point I was trying to get across. Some of the examples give by simplicitus give credence to this view. For example, Duhem was trained in physics, but then went on to be successful as a philosopher.

I'm in general agreement with you even though the only time I really got to study argument was in a computing department.

Possibly the most interesting topic I've ever studied. It is philosophy of course but we must pretend it isn't because its kinda useful.

I agree with that. Philosophy is a legitimate subject worthy of study for many reasons. Contemplation for contemplation's sake. Inventing/refining logic. It has been useful in many fields for the clarification of concepts. However, clarity of thought or critical thought is a function of intelligence in general, it's not taught. I find it specious to suggest that philosophy teaches some kind of cross-discipline "critical thinking" skill.

Do you mean by this that critical thinking skills come naturally to intelligent people and do not have to be learned or taught? If so, all the research I've read about suggests the opposite.

Not exactly, although I don't know what all the research you've read says and how critical thinking skills are usually defined and then measured, so my views may be off. I can think of lots of skills that intelligent people need to learn/can be taught: how to play chess, how to analyze a poker hand, how to write a good essay. However, I'm very skeptical about the idea that philosophy fosters some kind of distinct yet generic critical thinking skill that mathematicians, physicists, novelists, historians, painters don't acquire by becoming proficient in their respective discipline.